Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mathabistic Taqleed Versus The Hanafiyyah

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Harris Hammam View Post

    25. Muḥammad bin ʿAlī ál-Ḥaṣkafī (died 1088) said (Ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār Sharḥ Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, pg. 16, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.):
    To discard what one has already implemented via following [a scholar] is - by agreement - illegal, and this is the preferred position of the [Ḥanafī] School.
    Brother HH, how does this statement prove haskafi did not oblige taqleed shakhsi ?
    Ibn al-Qayyim on laymen following only one maddhab:

    This is an ugly innovation, which was never claimed by anyone of the Imams of Islam, while they are the most high in ranking, and most respected, and the most knowledgeable of Allah and His Messenger to oblige the people with that.”

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by abu hudhayfah View Post
      so what i gather is that a layman should do ijtihad by means of:

      1. seeing the scholar who is more knowledgable and known for fame, character, taqwa etc.....

      2. or striving from ones own ability to see which scholar or madhab evidences are more closer to the truth


      NOW MY QUESTIONS:


      1. the first point anyone can do that, but what about the second point, one would need some sort of knowledge of usul fiqh and the principles used in deriving an evidence.? so for example on studies the usul of hanbali madhab (as it adopts qawl sahabah) and uses that as his foundation for seeing which opinion is closer to the truth.

      2. what about ijtihad by means of following the majority of the salaf in an opinion, would that be better at arriving at the truth than doing any of the above two? or is there a possibility that minority in this case may be on the truth, and so one should do ijtihad by means of the above two mentioned?


      3. I was explained that following a madhab has two seperate elements:

      1. following up every arrived opinion of that madhab in every single matter.

      2. following the method (juristic principles, usul fiqh) of that madhab in arriving at a ruling.

      so i was taught by my shaykh that the second one is what the actual students of imam abu hanifa (rahimullah) did. they just used the method of that madhab at arriving at a conclusion, so that is why they differed with imam abu hanifa on certain issues.

      whilst the first one is what those who claim to follow hanafi madhab do today.

      is this correct? if it is then it means that the students of imam abu hanifa actrually implemented point two from above.
      Wassalam. Thanks for your post. Few points:

      1. The point of the list is to prove that these scholars did not oblige the layman to adhere to one school. Now, there is a difference between the scholars in the list in other connected issues - four of them stand out:
      a) should/must the layman do Tarjeeh between scholars, or can he choose any scholar
      b) to what degree - large or small - is Tatabbu` 'l-Rukhas allowed
      c) is the severe type of Talfeeq allowed or not
      d) is it correct for a layman to be identified with one school or not

      You will find different scholars on the list supporting both positions in all four issues.

      But the main point is this: This thread is not designed to discuss these four issues. In the future insha'allah, we shall open threads in this regard. Currently, we are still adding to the list.

      What is dangerous, like many Taqleedi fanatics do, is to mix up these four connected yet distinct issues with the Taqleed issue itself. So they'll come to you - in a pseudo-academic manner it must be added - and will claim that "So and so scholar did not allow Talfeeq, or did not allow Tatabbu` 'l-Rukhas, allowed a layman to be affiliated to a school of law, therefore Taqleed Shakhsi is necessary". This is the nonsense they come up with in order to intimidate/brainwash people into their obligation of Taqleed Shakhsi. They even go a step further and tell them that this has been the obligation for over a millennium!




      2. Another interesting point that can be investigated later is when did the various trends emerge, i.e. who expressed the issue in a particular manner that was picked up later on. This would help us ascertain the influence a particular scholar had on the other scholars of the School. One who stands out is Ibn 'l-Humam's influence on the Hanafi scholars (despite what others might think of Ibn 'l-Humam as a scholar who went against the reliable position of the Hanafi school, whatever that is supposed to mean)

      Another interesting point of research is the geographies. On the list, there are Baghdadis, Misris, Turks, Damascenes, Indians and Khurasanis. It would be good to know which region influenced which, and which was the strongest/weakest in this regard.

      Please note that, when we have compiled forty scholars, it does not mean there were only forty scholars. Look at for example the statement of al-Sirami (no. 13), where he makes references to the major Muftis of Misr.




      3. Coming back to your other point about Imam Abu Hanifah's students following the Imam in the Usool, that is totally wrong. A simple browse into the Hanafi texts on Usool, and in the works of Muhammad bin 'l-Hasan, will shatter the myth that Muhammad or Abu Yusuf or Zufar were Muqallids of Imam Abu Hanifah in the Usool.

      The main question therefore is: How come these Muhammad or Abu Yusuf or Zufar are counted as Hanafis? What does it mean for them to be a Hanafi?

      The answer to that is: Nothing really, but this is the way things panned out. Furthermore, their opinion were recorded together and preserved, making them part of 'one school'. In addition, the strong teacher-student relationship, in addition to the fact that Muhammad, Zufar and al-Hasan bin Ziyad etc. were narrators of Imam Abu Hanifah's Fiqh, whereas Abu Yusuf only appointed judges who were generally aligned with the Kufan Fiqh methodology, explains why the likes of Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Zufar, were naturally counted as part of the Hanafi school. Very soon in the third century after Hijrah, scholars started attributing themselves to the Hanafis Madhhab. However, you will find scholars in the second and this centuries who are differed over whether they were Hanafis or not. There is a thesis somewhere on the net that discusses these so-called semi-Hanafis, most of whom were inclined to the Madhhab of the Ahl 'l-Hadith, or were actually independent Mujtahids in their own right.

      Imam Abu Hanifah was the student of Hammad bin Abi Sulayman, yet nobody says that Imam Abu Hanifah was a Muqallid of Hammad (or Ibrahim al-Nakha`i) in the Usool. I wonder why people then think that Abu Yusuf or Zufar or Muhammad were Muqallids of Imam Abu Hanifah in Usool.

      Personally, the fault of this misconception lies firmly at the door of the nonsensical categorisation of jurists in seven, and trying to rigidly fit the jurists into one category. The levels have been criticised by many Hanafis, and some scholars have been arbitrarily shifted from one level to another simply because people saw these juniors above them on the list!

      So some would say that Abu Hanifah was a Mujtahid Mutlaq but Abu Yusuf etc. were Mujtahid Muqayyad. This is just so wrong. Unfortunately, many scholars went along with this seven/eight/three-way categorisation of jurists, and a lot of time has been wasted over this non-beneficial categorisation (not that there aren't any other non-beneficial issues that have gained unworthy attention in Fiqh and Usool, but this is what became of Fiqh authorship in the middle ages).

      I do admit that different scholars dedicated themselves to different things, e.g. Takhreej, Istinbat, Tarjeeh, Riwayah; some did a combination of these things. That's ok. But to then start categorising them into a certain level of jurists amongst a fabricated list of jurist levels is something I don't buy at all.

      We have later Hanafi scholar like al-Tahawi, al-Jassas and Ibn 'l-Humam who were Mujtahids of the highest order; they weren't Muqallids of Imam Abu Hanifah or anyone else; rather their Ijtihad largely met with the Imam's Ijtihad, but differed in some places.

      I prefer the Usool distinction between people: Muqallid and Mujtahid. Some opt for a three-way categorisation which is good too: Muqallid, Taalib, Mujtahid.

      There is a lot that can be said here on this point, but suffice to say that people get distracted from the main issues at hand, which is what a scholar actually produced in his life, rather than what level of jurist he falls under.
      And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
      he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

      because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
      and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

      (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by al bakistani View Post
        Brother HH, how does this statement prove haskafi did not oblige taqleed shakhsi ?
        Good question. You are asking about the Wajh 'l-Dalaalah from his statement that proves the argument presented in the title of the post.

        If you look carefully, were have made reference to three super-commentaries on al-Haskafi's book - all of whom are present on the list:
        1. Hashiyat 'l-Halabi
        2. Hashiyat 'l-Tahtawi
        3. Hashiyat Ibn `Abideen

        Look at their commentary on this statement of al-Haskafi and you'll realise how it supports our argument.
        And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
        he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

        because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
        and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

        (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Harris Hammam View Post
          Good question. You are asking about the Wajh 'l-Dalaalah from his statement that proves the argument presented in the title of the post.

          If you look carefully, were have made reference to three super-commentaries on al-Haskafi's book - all of whom are present on the list:
          1. Hashiyat 'l-Halabi
          2. Hashiyat 'l-Tahtawi
          3. Hashiyat Ibn `Abideen

          Look at their commentary on this statement of al-Haskafi and you'll realise how it supports our argument.
          You mean that these 3 hanafis quoted above in the list are actually commenting on this statement of haskafi in those qoutes ?
          Ibn al-Qayyim on laymen following only one maddhab:

          This is an ugly innovation, which was never claimed by anyone of the Imams of Islam, while they are the most high in ranking, and most respected, and the most knowledgeable of Allah and His Messenger to oblige the people with that.”

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by al bakistani View Post
            You mean that these 3 hanafis quoted above in the list are actually commenting on this statement of haskafi in those qoutes ?
            Of course. It's a nightmare statement made by al-Haskafi for these Taqleedi fanatics.
            And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
            he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

            because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
            and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

            (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

            Comment


            • #36
              Assalaamu Alaykum akhi Harris,

              Come across the following quotations from other Hanafi authorities so thought I'd add them here;

              1) al-Sarkhasee said,"If taqleed was permissible then the people before us had more right, of us making taqleed of them (rather then the four Imaams) such as Hasan al-Basri and (Ibrahim) Nakha'i" (al-Mabsoot 12/28)

              2) Mulla Ali al-Qari said, “Allaah has not obligated upon anyone that he become a hanafee, shaafi'ee, maalikee or a hanbalee, rather Allaah has obligated action upon the sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) upon everyone." (Sharh Ain al-Ilm p.326)

              3) Shah Waliullah said, “The general people especially nowadays in every place will be seen to be adherent to a particular madhab of the earlier scholars. They think that if a person leaves his madhab of the Imaam he does taqleed in any one issue then it is as if he has left the religion. So they consider their Imaams to be Prophets that have been sent and they consider and hold it obligatory for him to do taqleed of the Imaam, whereas the people of this ummah before the fourth century were not adherent to a particular madhab". (Hujjatullah al-Baaligah 1/445)
              .
              إِنَّ أَوَّلَ مَا يُحَاسَبُ بِهِ الْعَبْدُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ مِنْ عَمَلِهِ صَلَاتُهُ فَإِنْ صَلُحَتْ فَقَدْ أَفْلَحَ وَأَنْجَحَ

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Asad-ibn-khalid View Post
                Assalaamu Alaykum akhi Harris,
                Wassalam

                Originally posted by Asad-ibn-khalid View Post
                Come across the following quotations from other Hanafi authorities so thought I'd add them here;
                Shukran

                Originally posted by Asad-ibn-khalid View Post
                1) al-Sarkhasee said,"If taqleed was permissible then the people before us had more right, of us making taqleed of them (rather then the four Imaams) such as Hasan al-Basri and (Ibrahim) Nakha'i" (al-Mabsoot 12/28)
                This does not qualify to go on the list brother.

                This was al-Sarakhsi is quoting Muhammad bin 'l-Hasan, who was apparently having a go at his teacher, Imam Abu Hanifah, on the issue of Waqf not being permanent.

                Muhammad was trying to say that "If blind following was allowed, then people before Abu Hanifah would have been more worthy of being blindly followed, but even that is not allowed."

                So he was talking to scholars and not laymen. But it is interesting to note how Muhammad referred to blind following as "Taqleed" and not necessarily saying "blind Taqleed".

                Similarly, another connotation of "Taqleed" is to take an opinion from outside the Madhhab one practises. So if the a Hanafi takes opinion of Malik, this is called "Taqleed."

                Originally posted by Asad-ibn-khalid View Post
                2) Mulla Ali al-Qari said, “Allaah has not obligated upon anyone that he become a hanafee, shaafi'ee, maalikee or a hanbalee, rather Allaah has obligated action upon the sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) upon everyone." (Sharh Ain al-Ilm p.326)
                That statement does not necessarily qualify for the list, as it is in reference to the necessity of following the Sunnah and not the layman being allowed to ask any scholar. I believe I already placed Mulla Ali al-Qari on the list:

                22. Mullā ‘Alī ál-Qārī (died 1040 A.H.) said (taken from Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām by Muḥammad Ḥayāħ ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), pg. 33-34, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):
                It is not obligatory upon anyone from the believing community to be a Ḥanafī, or a Shāfiʿī, or a Mālikī; rather, what is obligatory upon each person, if he is not a scholar, to follow one of these great scholars, as Allāh said, “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know”...


                But it would however be good to locate the exact source of where Mulla Ali al-Qari said this.

                Originally posted by Asad-ibn-khalid View Post
                3) Shah Waliullah said, “The general people especially nowadays in every place will be seen to be adherent to a particular madhab of the earlier scholars. They think that if a person leaves his madhab of the Imaam he does taqleed in any one issue then it is as if he has left the religion. So they consider their Imaams to be Prophets that have been sent and they consider and hold it obligatory for him to do taqleed of the Imaam, whereas the people of this ummah before the fourth century were not adherent to a particular madhab". (Hujjatullah al-Baaligah 1/445)
                Good quote, but once again, the topic is whether a layman can ask any Madhhab or must adhere to one Madhhab. Shah's position has been already established:

                33. Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Inṣāf):
                ... if he is in the Ḥaramayn [or any place where there are scholars of multiple schools, then he may ask any scholar]...
                And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                Comment


                • #38
                  57 ḤANAFĪ AUTHORITIES WHO DID NOT OBLIGE THE LAYMAN TO ADHERE TO ONE SCHOOL OF LAW

                  1. Abū Bakr ál-Jaṣṣāṣ ál-Rāzī (died 370 A.H.) said (Ál-Fuṣūl Fī ál-Uṣūl, 4/282-3, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Kuwait, 2nd edition, 1414 A.H.):
                  Because it is established that a layman must ask scholars, then either he has a choice of asking any, or he should do Ijtihād and ask the most knowledgeable and fearing according to [the concerned layman]... some said that he must ask the knowledgeable and fearful according to [the concerned layman]... and this is the correct opinion according to us... then it is impermissible for him... to do Taqlīd without Ijtihād, because [surely] he possesses this type of Ijtihād.

                  2. Abū ʿĀṣim Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-ʿĀmirī (died around 400 A.H.) (taken from Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār by ál-ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50-51)
                  used to pass verdicts by the door of [ál-Qāsim bin Muḥammad] ál-Qaffāl's [a Shāfiʿī - died around 400 A.H.] mosque. The [Shāfiʿī] muezzin [once] called for prayer, so [ál-ʿĀmirī] left [his place] and entered the mosque. When ál-Qaffāl saw him, he ordered the muezzin to double the prayer announcement (i.e. the Iqāmaħ) [as per the Ḥanafī position] and put forward the judge [i.e. Abū ʿĀṣim ál-Āmirī to lead prayer]. He stepped forward [to lead], read Basmallaħ aloud and performed prayer in the Shāfiʿī manner.

                  3-4. Regarding Abū ʿAlī ál-Ḥusayn bin 'l-Khaḍir ál-Nasafī (died 424 A.H.), Ibn Māzah Maḥmūd bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz ál-Bukhārī (died 616 A.H.) said (Ál-Muḥīṭ ál-Burhānī, 4/255, ál-Majlis ál-ʿIlmī Johannesburg, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):
                  An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife... This is what has been reported... from... Justice Abū ʿAlī ál-Nasafī (May Allāh have mercy on him).

                  5. Abū 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Qudūrī (died 428 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):
                  When we have established that the layman can perform Ijtihād in choosing Muftis, can he now perform Ijtihād in verdicts themselves in which he is to perform Taqlīd, i.e. if he thinks that a particular verdict of a particular jurist is more stronger, does he have to follow that verdict? Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and ál-Qudūrī differed over this: ál-Qudūrī obligated this...

                  6. Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī (died 430 A.H.), explaining that even laymen are not completely free from doing Ijtihād, said (Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ, pg. 392 and 410, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1421 A.H.):
                  Taqlīd is of four types: 1) Believing in the Prophet, 2) Believing in a scholar who is qualified to pass verdicts, 3) For the laymen to believe in the scholars of their era, 4) Sons believing their forefathers and minors believing the majors of this world. The first three are correct as they require at least some sort of effort (Istidlāl)...
                  As for the those who say that "The truth is only one [in the eyes of Allah in every issue]", he obliged the layman to follow the one Imām who is the most knowledgeable according to [this layman's] own deduction, and does not differ against [his Imām] in anything based his own predilection.

                  7. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Ṣaymarī (died 436 A.H.), is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/311-312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):
                  Abū Isḥāq ál-Shīrāzī said: A man came to the Ḥanafī jurist ál-Ṣaymarī with the Shāfiʿī verdict that if a marriage representative is a sinner and her husband divorced her thrice that the divorce would not pass, and may marry her with a new contract [as the previous contracted never existed]. Ál-Ṣaymarī said, "They have told you that, all this time, you were with an illegal pudenda, and that she can become legal for you today [with a new contract]! I am telling you that she was legal for you all this time until you divorced her, and now she is illegal for you!" By this, ál-Ṣaymarī intended to sway the layman to the Ḥanafī School. (Abū Isḥāq says) I came to Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and told him he story. He replied, "... but Allāh has not ordained the layman to follow ál-Ṣaymarī; rather he has ordained him to follow any scholar he wishes, so when the layman follows a trustworthy Shāfiʿī, he would have liberated himself of sin and liability until the Day of Judgement."

                  8-9. Dāwūd bin Yūsuf ál-Khaṭīb (died post-600 A.H.?) – quoting Shams 'l-A'immaħ ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad bin Naṣr ál-Ḥalwānī (died 448 A.H.) – said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Ghiyāthiyyaħ, pg. 85, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1321 A.H.):
                  An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.

                  10. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAli bin 'l-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad ál-Sughdī (died 461 A.H.) said (Ál-Nutaf Fī ál-Fatāwā, 2/861, Mu'assasaŧ 'l-Risālaħ Beirut, 2nd edition, 1404 A.H.):
                  Similarly, if it was a learned person facing an issue [of potential divorce after he uttered something to his wife], so he asked a jurist regarding [what he uttered to his wife], and [the jurist] passed the verdict of [her] legality or illegality [upon him], but [the questioner] did not set himself upon the verdict [to occur on his wife] nor did he pass it on [his wife], but rather asked another jurist, and [this second jurist] passed a verdict that was opposite to the first jurist’s verdict, and [the questioner] passed [this second verdict on his wife] and set himself upon [this second verdict] for himself and his wife, and he abandoned the verdict of the first jurist, then [the second verdict] would become binding upon him. He cannot [now] take the first jurist’s verdict by discarding [the second] verdict which he had set himself upon...
                  If a jurist gave [the questioner] a verdict, but he did not set upon it in regards to his wife nor did he pass it on her before having asked another jurist, then it is permissible for him to take either of the verdicts him, set himself upon it and pass it [on his wife].

                  11. ʿAbd 'l-Sayyid ál-Khaṭībī (died 489 A.H.) said (taken from ál-Jawāhir ál-Muḍiyyaħ Fī Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanafiyyaħ by Abū 'l-Wafā' ál-Qurashī (died 775), 2/425-426, Dār Hajar Giza, 2nd edition 1413 A.H.)
                  was asked regarding the one who suspended three divorces upon marrying her, then was told that it would not occur according to the opinion of ál-Shāfiʿī, so he took his opinion on the basis that ál-Shāfiʿī is a reliable Mujtahid – can he stay with her or not [after marrying her, since the Ḥanafī position is that three divorces would automatically occur upon marriage]. He replied: “According to our ʿIrāqī Mashāyikh, yes; according to our Khurāsānī Mashāyikh, no.”

                  12. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 47, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                  If a female minor was married off by her representative to a male minor in the testimony of transgressors and the father of [the male minor] accepted, then they reached adulthood but there was remote absence between the couple, the [Ḥanafī] judge is allowed to send [the case of the female] to a Shāfiʿi [judge] to annul the marriage based on this reason. The Ḥanafī judge may himself execute this also by taking [the Shāfiʿi] position, even though it is not be his own position...

                  13. Ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd Abū Muḥammad ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz (died 536 A.H.) said in his ál-Fatāwā ál-Ṣughrā (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                  If a person asked for a verdict, and one scholar passed the verdict of permissibility, then another passé the verdict of illegality after the questioner had implemented the verdict of the first, then he [can] implement the verdict of the second in relation to another wife [of his], but not in relation to his first wife.

                  14. Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Samarqandī (died 539 A.H.) said (Mīzān 'l-Uṣūl Fī Natā'ij 'l-ʿUqūl, pg. 1017, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1404 A.H.):
                  As for Taqlīd in legal issues, it is impermissible except for laymen and those students of knowledge who are like laymen until as long as they do not reach the level of Ijtihād. This is due to necessity. However, they must follow whoever is the most knowledgeable and the most fearful in their estimation. [This can be ascertained] via hearing out for fame [in the scholar].

                  15. Abū 'l-Thanā' Maḥmūd bin Zayd ál-Lāmishī (was alive 539 A.H.) said (pg. 201, unnamed Usūl book, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1415 A.H.):
                  When he reaches this limit that we have mentioned, it would be legal for him to pass legal verdicts to whoever questions him via his personal opinion and Ijtihād. But if he has not reached this level and was asked in an issue, then he may answer if he knows the statement of the predecessors, otherwise not.

                  16. Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad ál-Kirmānī (died 543 A.H.) said (taken from Nūr 'l-ʿAyn Fī Iṣlāḥ Jāmiʿ 'l-Fuṣūlayn by Nishānjī Zādah (died 1031 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7184, pg. 15):
                  If a person passing verdicts is a non-Mujtahid Muqallid, he should take the opinion of the jurist who is the best according to him and reference [his] answer to him. If he is in another city, he should make written correspondence with him. He must not arbitrarily estimate [verdicts] out of fear of lying against Allāh.

                  17. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Ḥamīd ál-Usmandī (died 552 A.H.), said (Badhl 'l-Naẓr Fī ál-Uṣūl, pg. 693-694, Maktabaŧ Dār 'l-Turāth Cairo, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.):
                  If another legalist has a difference of opinion with [the layman's] Mufti, the [layman's] legalist can give the layman a choice whether he wants to take his opinion or the other Mufti's opinion, because both opinions are from Ijtihād.

                  18. Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.) said (Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā, pg. 318, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                  As for the lay Muslims, it is not in the power of each and every one of them to execute preference between evidences and perform Ijtihād; but it is appropriate for them to prefer an Imām and follow him. Once [the layman] contemplates and thus chooses one Imām over another and sees the correctness in the [legal] method [of his Imām], the verdicts of other Imāms would have been invalidated for him, and he cannot practise upon their schools, just like a Mujtahid cannot practise upon other evidences once he sees a particular piece of evidence as the correct one.

                  19. Abū Naṣr Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-ʿAttābī (died 586 A.H.) said in his Jawāmiʿ 'l-Fiqh (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                  If a layman is given different verdicts by the Muftīs, he would be obliged by the verdict he chooses and sets himself upon. It has [also] been said that [he would be obliged by] the first verdict [that was given to him]. Once he chooses one, then he came to face the same situation [at another time], he should not abandon [the verdict he had implemented].

                  20. Ál-Ḥasan bin Manṣūr ál-Ūzjandī (died 592 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Qāḍī Khān (printed alongside ál-Fatāwā ál-Hindiyyaħ), 2/453, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 2nd edition, 1310 A.H.):
                  [In fact], an even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists (May Allāh have mercy on them)... if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife. It has [also] been reported from them if a person facing a situation asks a jurist and he replied that the suspension is redundant, he can retain [his wife], and if he married another after [the first]... and asked another jurist... who replied that the suspension was correct and his divorce occurs with [his suspension], then he would separate himself from the second woman, but can still retain the first. This is [all] because the verdict given by a jurist to an ignorant person is tantamount to the verdict of a judge who has been appointed to the case, or the award of an arbiter.

                  21. Yūsuf bin Abī Saʿīd ál-Sijistānī (died post-638 A.H.?) said (Munyaŧ 'l-Muftī, pg. 63, Houghton Library, Harvard University Cambridge MA):
                  An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.

                  22. Muẓaffar 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Sāʿātī Aḥmad bin ʿAlī bin Taghlib ál-Baʿlabakkī (died 694 A.H.) said (Badīʿ 'l-Niẓām ál-Jāmiʿ Bayn Kitābay 'l-Bazdawī Wa-'l-Iḥkām, pg. 684-685, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1405 A.H.):
                  If there are multiple Mujtahids, a Muqallid can follow whoever he likes even if [the Mujtahids] differ in status. It is narrated from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that it is necessary [for the Muqallid] to look out for the most preferred [Mujtahid]. Our evidence is that, in the time of the Companions, the lower-ranked [Mujtahids] were – openly and repeatedly – asked for and passed legal verdicts, yet nobody condemned [this practice]...

                  23. Akmal 'l-Dīn ál-Bābartī (died 786 A.H.) said (Ál-Rudūd Wa-'l-Nuqūd ʿAlā Mukhtaṣar Ibn 'l-Ḥājib, 2/732, Maktabaŧ 'l-Rushd, Riyadh, 1426 A.H. edition):
                  The preferable opinion is that it is permissible [to take another Mujtahid's opinion]... because laymen have always done Taqlīd of one Mujtahid in one issue and another in another issue, and this was never condemned, so therefore this is a consensus on its permissibility.

                  24. ʿAlā' 'l-Dīn Abū Bakr bin Masʿūd ál-Kāsānī (died 787 A.H.) said (Badā'iʿ 'l-Ṣanā'iʿ, 7/6, Dār 'l-Kitāb ál-ʿArabī Beirut, 2nd edition, 1394 A.H.):
                  Also, if a person is not a jurist, and he asked a jurist about something and he gave him his opinion of lawfulness or illegality, and he did not implement that opinion, then another jurist gave him a different opinion and he took it and implemented it in his wife [vis-a-vis divorce (etc.)], then this non-jurist cannot abandon the opinion he implemented in favour of the first jurist's opinion, because adhering to what one implements is obligatory.

                  25. ʿAlī Ibn Abī 'l-ʿIzz (died 792 A.H.), author of Sharḥ Mushkilāt 'l-Hidāyaħ, said (Ál-Ittibāʿ, pg. 80, ál-Maktabaħ ál-Salafiyyaħ, Lahore, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.):
                  The most that can be said is that it is permissible or appropriate or obligatory for the layman to do Taqlīd of one of the Imāms without specification of any Zayd or ʿAmr.

                  26. Ibn 'l-Bazzāz Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Shihāb bin Yūsuf ál-Kardarī (died 827 A.H.) said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Bazzāziyyaħ, pg. 304, British Museum London manuscript):
                  An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.

                  27. Abū Sayf Yaḥyā bin Yūsuf ál-Sīrāmī (died 833 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār by ál-ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50):
                  The main Muftīs of Egypt agreed with me on [the issue that a person who affiliates himself to one school can follow a jurist from another school in any particular issue, due to the jurist being possibly correct in the eyes of Allāh].

                  28. Muḥammad bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Fanārī (died 834 A.H.) said (Fuṣūl 'l-Badā'iʿ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Sharā'iʿ, 2/498, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1427 A.H.):
                  A layman who has implemented a Mujtahid’s opinion in a particular issue cannot – by agreement – discard it in favour of another [opinion]. As for another issue [in which this layman has not implemented any opinion], the preferred position is the permissibility of following another [Mujtahid] due to its definite, widespread and well-known occurrence without condemnation in the era of the Companions (may God be pleased with them) [and] without being forced to ask one Muftī only. As for when one [wishes to] adhere to a particular school like that of Abū Ḥanīfaħ (may God be pleased with him), it has been said has it would be binding [upon him to adhere to it]. It has [also] been said that it [still] not be binding upon him [i.e.] he cannot discard [the verdict] of [the Imām he wishes to adhere to] in those scenarios that have occurred and he has followed him, [but] he may follow whomever he wishes in any other [scenario] apart from [what he has already practised upon an opinion in].

                  29. Qarq Amīr ál-Ḥamīdī (died 860 A.H.), author of Jāmiʿ 'l-Fatāwā (manuscript), said (taken from ál-Inṣāf by Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.)):
                  If a [layman practising on] Ḥanafī [law] said, ‘If I marry soand so, she is divorced three times’, then he asked a Shāfiʿī [scholar about his], and hetold him that she would not be divorced should he marry her, [stating] that his statement was redundant, there would be no problem [for the layman] in following ál-Shāfiʿī in this issue, because there are many Companions of this opinion.

                  30. Ibn 'l-Humām (died 861 A.H.), commentator on ál-Marghīnānī’s ál-Hidāyaħ, said (Fatḥ 'l-Qadīr, 7/238-239, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):
                  If this ‘adhering to’ is meant, then [realise that] there is no legal evidence that obligates following one particular Mujtahid by virtue of obligating it upon one’s own self either via explicating it or by intending it; rather such an obligation is only via evidence and the necessity of implementing the ruling of the Mujtahid in what arises for him as is pointed out in the verse of ‘Ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know’, and [the obligation of] ‘asking’ only arises when the particular situation [requiring the ruling] arises. In this case, if the Mujtahid’s verdict is established to him, he must implement it. Usually, such self-obligations [of adhering to a school or a Mujtahid] are done due to prevent people from following up specifically on dispensations; otherwise the layman would take the easiest opinion in every issue. However, I don’t know what logic or legal text actually prohibits this, and I don’t know of any condemnation from the law against a person who follows up on dispensations via the verdicts of qualified Mujtahids who can be followed. Also, the Prophet loved to make it affairs easy for his believing community.

                  31. Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj (died 879 A.H.) - explaining "The layman not possessing a school" - said (Ál-Taqrīr Wa-'l-Taḥbīr, 3/350, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1316 A.H.):
                  ... because a school is only for that person who has a degree of analysis, ability to evidence and have an insight of the schools as he is capable, or one who read a text on the legal issues of that school and becomes acquainted with the verdicts of his Imām and his statements... As the layman is ignorant of the modus operandi of the Imām of the school he is ascribing himself to, and as long as he is ignorant of his methodology, how can this layman ascribe himself to the Imām's school? To the contrary, his ascription to a school would be a mere claim, and it would be a statement that is void of any real meaning... There is consensus that a Muslim can do Taqlīd of whichever scholar he wishes without restriction. Whoever says anything to the contrary, the burden of proof is on them... It is not correct for a layman to ascribe himself to a school. Such a person would not be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī, even if he claims to be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī... If a layman took it upon himself to follow one school, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ, Malik, ál-Shāfi'ī or Ahmed, it would not be obligatory upon him to adhere to that school, because Allāh made no such obligations upon him, nor did Allāh or His Prophet ever ordered anyone to adopt a school.

                  32. Yūsuf bin Ḥusayn ál-Kirmāstī (died 906 A.H.) said (Ál-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 318, Dār 'l-Hudā Cairo, 1st edition, 1404 A.H.)
                  [What is preferred is] the permissibility for a Muqallid to follow a lesser Mujtahid when there is a multitude of Mujtahids of differing levels [in their skill and knowledge]. It is however reported from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that [asking] the best [Mujtahid] is binding on that layman. And when a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in an issue, he cannot discard it in favour of a [different opinion in the same issue] by agreement [of the scholars]. As for the opinion of [another Mujtahid] in another issue [that is separate from the issue in which he has already implemented one the opinion of one Mujtahid], the preferred opinion is that it is permissible to follow that other scholar.

                  33. Ibn Nujaym (died 970 A.H.), the commentator on Kanz 'l-Daqā'iq, said (Ál-Baḥr ál-Rā'iq, 6/292, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-ʿIlmiyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1311 A.H.)
                  Chapter: "It is permissible to follow any Mujtahid one wishes", even when the schools of law are compiled (as is the case today), and he can also change from his [previously-adopted] legal position, but not out of constantly following up on dispensations...

                  34. Amīr Bādshāh (died 972 A.H.?) reproduced the Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj's words in the other commentary of ál-Taḥrīr (4/253, Taysīr 'l-Taḥrīr, Maktabaŧ 'l-Maʿārif, Riyadh, 1403 A.H.).

                  35. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Tumurtāshī (died 1004 A.H.), author of Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, said (Muʿīn 'l-Muftī ʿAlā Jawāb 'l-Mustaftī, Imām Muḥammad bin Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 2052):
                  It is permissible [for a Muqallid] to follow a lesser Mujtahid [even] in the presence of a better Mujtahid. Aḥmad and many jurists, however, do not allow this. The first opinion is based on the fact that lesser Companions used to be asked for legal rulings [by lay Muslims in the presence of greater Companions, and this was done] without any condemnation levelled at the questioner... and on that a layman cannot execute preference [between multiple Mujtahids].

                  36. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Malik ál-Baghdādī (died 1016 A.H.) said (taken from Khulāṣaŧ 'l-Taḥqīq Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.), pg. 5, Maktabaŧ 'l-Ḥaqīqaħ Istanbul, 1420 A.H.):
                  Realise that the position of the majority, which was chosen by Ibn 'l-Humām, is that the adherence [to a school of law] in itself is not the primary obligation; rather it is permissible for anyone to ask in any matter whichever scholar he chooses and implement his verdict thereafter, as was the case in the better eras [i.e. that] of the Companions and those who came after them, may Allah be pleased with them all.

                  37. Mullā ‘Alī ál-Qārī (died 1040 A.H.) said (taken from Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām by Muḥammad Ḥayāħ ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), pg. 33-34, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):
                  It is not obligatory upon anyone from the believing community to be a Ḥanafī, or a Shāfiʿī, or a Mālikī; rather, what is obligatory upon each person, if he is not a scholar, to follow one of these great scholars, as Allāh said, “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know”...

                  38. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAẓīm ál-Makkī (died 1061 A.H.) said (Ál-Qawl ál-Sadīd Fī Baʿḍ Masā'il 'l-Ijtihād Wa-'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 301789, pg. 4)
                  Know that Abū Hanīfaħ, Mālik, ál-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad bin Ḥanbal are all the People of Knowledge who must be asked and followed by whom who is not a Mujtahid. If any Muqallid implements in his purity or prayer or anything else the opinion of any one of these, either out of Taqlīd, or without even knowing he had implemented it when he was doing what he did... then he would have discharged his obligation. No Muqallid or even Mujtahid can condemn him for doing so, as has been well documented in more than one book as is the case according to us [Ḥanafīs]...

                  39. Ḥasan bin ʿAmmār ál-Shurunbulālī (died 1069 A.H.), author of Nūr 'l-•ḍāḥ, said (Ál-ʿIqd ál-Farīd Li-Bayān 'l-Rājiḥ Min 'l-Khilāf Fī Jawāz 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 324506, pg. 11):
                  ... because [a layman's] adherence [to one Mujtahid] is not something that is legally obligated...

                  40. Muḥammad bin ʿAlī ál-Ḥaṣkafī (died 1088) said (Ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār Sharḥ Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, pg. 16, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.):
                  To discard what one has already implemented via following [a scholar] is - by agreement - illegal, and this is the preferred position of the [Ḥanafī] School.

                  41. Aḥmad bin Muḥammad ál-Ḥamawī (died 1098), the commentator on Ibn Nujaym’s ál-Ashbāh Wa-'l-Naẓā'ir, said (Ál-Durr ál-Farīd Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 327244, pg. 9):
                  It is gained from what we have said that a person does not have to adhere to one particular school...

                  42. Ibrāhīm bin Ḥusayn Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), footnoting of the statement of ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd, said (Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                  Understand that this person is not adhering to the position of the first scholar, but rather only followed him in one issue.

                  43-44. The author of the base text Musallam 'l-Thubūt (died 1119 A.H.) was Muḥibb 'llah bin ʿAbd 'l-Shakūr ál-Bihārī. The commentator on the book, Muḥammad bin Niẓām 'l-Dīn ál-Sahālawī (died 1225 A.H.) in Fawātiḥ 'l-Raḥamūt, said (printed beneath ál-Ghazālī’s ál-Mustaṣfā, 2/406, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1324 A.H.):
                  It is not necessary to stay on the school, and it is correct to switch to another, and this is the truth that should be believed in, but changing should not be done out of desires, as following desires is prohibited in both adopting a school and in other issues of law. (He refers to some later extremist Ḥanafīs in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as simulators (Mutakallifīn) who adopted hard handedness (Tashaddud).)

                  45. ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.) said (Nihāyaŧ 'l-Murād Fī Sharḥ Hadiyyaŧ Ibn 'l-ʿImād, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6918, pg. 122):
                  As for placing necessity as a prerequisite for a Ḥanafī to follow another Imām, you have already learned previously that this [prerequisite is placed] for preserve [oneself] from following dispensations across the legal schools. Otherwise, necessity in itself following [any one of] the Four Imāms once the prerequisites of their respective schools’ legal rulings are fulfilled [when implementing those rulings]. This is because a legally-bound person has a choice of following any one of them in any situation that may arise – as stated before – without the need for [this legally-bound person] to prefer one [Imām’s] deduction over another [Imām’s] deduction.

                  46. Muḥammad Ḥayāt ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), footnoting on Ibn Nujaym’s statement, said (Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām, pg. 56, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):
                  What he has mentioned is what the Qurān, the prophetic tradition and the statements of the best scholars of old and new have indicated towards. The opinion of anyone opposing this would not be taken into consideration...

                  47. Abū 'l-Najāḥ Aḥmad bin ʿAlī ál-Manīnī (died 1172 A.H.) quoting from Ibn 'l-Humām's ál-Taḥrīr, said (Ál-ʿAraf ál-Nāsim ʿAlā Risālaŧ 'l-ʿAllāmaħ Ibn Qāsim, Islamic University Madinah manuscript number 29/251, pg. 86):
                  If one is a layman, he would follow the verdict of the Muftī in [that issue] who is the most pious and knowledgeable [according to this layman, and this can be ascertained] via publicity.

                  48. Abū Saʿīd Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā ál-Khādimī (died 1176 A.H.) said (Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 304849, pg. 48):
                  When a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in any given scenario, he may not defect to [another Mujtahid's verdict, and this is] agreed upon. As for [taking another Mujtahid's opinion] in another legal scenario, the preferred position is that of permissibility.

                  49. Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Inṣāf):
                  ... if he is in the Ḥaramayn [or any place where there are scholars of multiple schools, then he may ask any scholar]...

                  50. Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥalabī (died 1190 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-Ḥalabī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 3495, pg. 6):
                  The example [of the impermissibility of discarding what one has already implemented as a Muqallid] is a Ḥanafī following Mālik in marriage via announcement [but] without witnesses, who then wishes to discard following [Mālik after the marriage contract by not giving the marriage gift (Mahr) to his wife based on the Ḥanafī position]. He cannot do so [as this would lead to the severe type of Talfīq in which both schools agree the marriage is invalid].

                  51. ʿUmar bin Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Āmidī (died 1200 A.H.?) said (Sharḥ 'l-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, King ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz Library Madinah manuscript number 1096):
                  Amongst these issues is the topic of the permissibility [or impermissibility] of exiting one particular school to another after having taken it upon oneself to adhere to [the first]. [The first position] is that it is not permissible, as he has taken it upon himself to adhere [to it], even though the act of adherence is not obligatory itself was not obligatory [upon him] in the first place. [The other opinion] is that it is permissible, and to adhere to what one takes upon oneself is not binding. [The third opinion] is that it is impermissible in some issues and permissible in others – a middle path between the [first] two opinions: so it would be permissible in those issues in which he has not practised upon the opinion [of the school he has taken upon himself to adhere to, and this is based on] what has just been mentioned in regards to the practise of the non-adhering [Muqallid].

                  52. Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ismāʿīl ál-ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50):
                  What is impermissible is to discard [the ruling one has already implemented] in a past scenario [that occurred to him], not a scenario of the same genre that would occur in the future.

                  53. Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā (was alive 1246 A.H.) agreed with ál-Khādimī (Manāfiʿ 'l-Daqā'iq Sharḥ Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, pg. 304, Dār 'l-ibāʿāħ ál-ʿĀmiraħ Istanbul edition, 1306 A.H.)

                  54. Ibn ʿĀbidīn (died 1252 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ Ibn ʿĀbidīn ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, 4/598, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1415 A.H.):
                  When a questioner implements the verdict of a Muftī in one situation, then another [Muftī] gave him a verdict different to that of the first, he cannot break his action in that situation [based on the second verdict]. However, he may implement [the verdict of the second Muftī] in another situation. For example, a person performs Ẓuhr after touching an alien woman by following Abū Ḥanīfaħ [that ablution does not break], then he [wished to] follow ál-Shāfiʿī [that ablution breaks, and this was after having performed the day’s Ẓuhr], he cannot nullify that Ẓuhr, but he can follow the verdict of ál-Shāfiʿī for another [day’s] Ẓuhr. This is what is meant by the statement of those who say ‘A Muqallid cannot discard his legal position.’

                  55. Khwājah Zādah Muḥammad Rāsim ál-Malāṭī (died 1316 A.H.) said (Minjāŧ 'l-Wuṣūl Sharḥ Mirqāŧ 'l-Uṣūl, Istanbul University manuscript number 2172, pg. 294):
                  In the case of multiple Mujtahids, it is permissible to follow the lesser in favour of the greater, even when the greater in passing verdicts is present. It has been said that the greater in passing verdicts would become binding [and should be followed], and it would not [even] be permissible for the lesser to pass verdicts in [the greater's] presence.

                  56. Muḥammad Zāhid ál-Kawtharī (died 1371 A.H.) said (Iḥqāq 'l-Ḥaqq, part of a series on ál-Kawtharī’s legal and jurisprudential works, pg. 152, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):
                  In the commentary of Tanqīḥ 'l-Fuṣūl, ál-Shihāb Aḥmad bin Idrīs ál-Qarāfī said, “Consensus has been established on that whosoever accepts Islām, he may follows any scholar he wishes without restriction. The Companions (may Allah’s be pleased with them) had a consensus that whoever asked Abū Bakr or ʿUmar, or followed them [for that matter], he had the choice of asking Abū Hurayraħ and Muʿādh bin Jabal (and others [as well]), and could implement the opinion of the [latter] two without condemnation. Whosoever claims that these two consensuses no longer apply, the burden of proof is on him”...
                  The ramification of this double-consensus is that people are have a choice of following any one of the followed Imāms via the modes of preference that may appear to them, without obliging all the Muslims to follow one particular Imām amongst them...

                  57. ʿAbd 'l-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddaħ (died 1417 A.H.) quoted Ibn Amīr 'l-Ḥājj (footnotes of ál-Iḥkām by ál-Qarāfī (died 684 A.H.), pg. 231, Maktab 'l-Maṭbūʿāt ál-Islāmiyyaħ Aleppo, 2nd edition, 1416 A.H.):
                  If [a layman] adopts a particular school of law, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ or ál-Shāfiʿī, then it has been said: "It will be upon him to adhere to it". It has [also] been said: "[It will] not [be upon him to adhere to it]", and this is more correct.



                  NOTES:

                  1. Additions are in red.

                  2. Some quotes require a brief explanation how they support the title, i.e. the non-obligation of adhering to one school of law. This shall be done in due time.

                  3. I have gathered a good number of quotes from Hanafi scholars that suggest the opposite. They shall be posted soon on IA with a full discussion.
                  And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                  he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                  because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                  and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                  (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    A detailed discussion on replying to those quotes from the Hanafi scholars that seem to suggest the opposite is now taking place.

                    I'll post the link once the IA forum is up again.
                    And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                    he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                    because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                    and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                    (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Harris Hammam View Post
                      A detailed discussion on replying to those quotes from the Hanafi scholars that seem to suggest the opposite is now taking place.

                      I'll post the link once the IA forum is up again.
                      Discussion begins here:
                      http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f...tml#post418388
                      And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                      he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                      because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                      and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                      (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        It's all been separated out for purposes of ease. I have changed the title to accommodate more quotes. The list now stands at seventy.


                        70 ḤANAFĪ AUTHORITIES WHO, VIA VARIOUS TYPES OF STATEMENTS, OPPOSED THE SELF-OBLIGATION OF ‘MAṢLAḤAH-BASED TAQLĪD SHAKHṢĪ OF MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’ UPON THE LAYMEN OF THE WHOLE UMMAH


                        A. THOSE WHO OBLIGED THE LAYMAN TO EXCERCISE TARJĪḤ IN THE PRESENCE OF MULTIPLE SCHOLARS REGARDLESS OF MADHHAB, RATHER THAN OBLIGE ‘TAQLĪD SHAKHṢĪ OF MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’

                        1. Abū Bakr ál-Jaṣṣāṣ ál-Rāzī (died 370 A.H.) said (Ál-Fuṣūl Fī ál-Uṣūl, 4/282-3, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Kuwait, 2nd edition, 1414 A.H.):
                        Because it is established that a layman must ask scholars, then either he has a choice of asking any, or he should do Ijtihād and ask the most knowledgeable and fearing according to [the concerned layman]... some said that he must ask the knowledgeable and fearful according to [the concerned layman]... and this is the correct opinion according to us... then it is impermissible for him... to do Taqlīd without Ijtihād, because [surely] he possesses this type of Ijtihād.[/FONT]

                        2. Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī (died 430 A.H.), explaining that even laymen are not completely free from doing Ijtihād, said (Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ, pg. 392 and 410, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1421 A.H.):
                        Taqlīd is of four types: 1) Believing in the Prophet, 2) Believing in a scholar who is qualified to pass verdicts, 3) For the laymen to believe in the scholars of their era, 4) Sons believing their forefathers and minors believing the majors of this world. The first three are correct as they require at least some sort of effort (Istidlāl)...
                        As for the those who say that "The truth is only one [in the eyes of Allah in every issue]", he obliged the layman to follow the one Imām who is the most knowledgeable according to [this layman's] own deduction, and does not differ against [his Imām] in anything based his own predilection.

                        3. Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Arsābandī (died 512 A.H.) in Mukhtaṣar Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ (taken from ál-Jawāhir ál-Muḍiyyaħ Fī Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanafiyyaħ by Abū 'l-Wafā' ál-Qurashī (died 775 A.H.), 3/148, Dār Hajar Giza, 2nd edition 1413 A.H.)

                        4. ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad ál-Bukhārī (died 730) quoted Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī (died 430 A.H.) (Kashf 'l-Asrār, 4/34, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.)

                        5. Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Samarqandī (died 539 A.H.) said (Mīzān 'l-Uṣūl Fī Natā'ij 'l-ʿUqūl, pg. 1017, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1404 A.H.):
                        As for Taqlīd in legal issues, it is impermissible except for laymen and those students of knowledge who are like laymen until as long as they do not reach the level of Ijtihād. This is due to necessity. However, they must follow whoever is the most knowledgeable and the most fearful in their estimation. [This can be ascertained] via hearing out for fame [in the scholar].

                        6. Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad ál-Kirmānī (died 543 A.H.) said (taken from Nūr 'l-ʿAyn Fī Iṣlāḥ Jāmiʿ 'l-Fuṣūlayn by Nishānjī Zādah (died 1031 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7184, pg. 15):
                        If a person passing verdicts is a non-Mujtahid Muqallid, he should take the opinion of the jurist who is the best according to him and reference [his] answer to him. If he is in another city, he should make written correspondence with him. He must not arbitrarily estimate [verdicts] out of fear of lying against Allāh.

                        7. Ibn Qutlūbughā (879 A.H.) said (Majmūʿ Rasā'il Qāsim Ibn Qutlūbughā, Ḥukm 'l-Khulʿ Wa-Ḥukm 'l-Ḥanbalī Fīh, Princeton University Library New Jersey, manuscript number GARRETT 3393 Y, pg. 114):
                        If something occurs for a Muqallid, he should practice according to the requirement of his Imām’s verdict if that situation is specific to him only. If there are two opinions [narrated from the Imām], he should practice according to the requirement of the authentic position of his Imām. If there are contradictory authentications, he should practice upon the verdict of the more knowledgeable and more God-fearing [authenticator]. If all are the same, he would have a choice in choosing which verdict he likes according to the Shāfiʿīs, and according to us he would have to present the case to a third Muftī even if he is in a different city.

                        8. Abū 'l-Najāḥ Aḥmad bin ʿAlī ál-Manīnī (died 1172 A.H.) quoting from Ibn 'l-Humām's ál-Taḥrīr, said (Ál-ʿAraf ál-Nāsim ʿAlā Risālaŧ 'l-ʿAllāmaħ Ibn Qāsim, Islamic University Madinah manuscript number 29/251, pg. 86):
                        If one is a layman, he would follow the verdict of the Muftī in [that issue] who is the most pious and knowledgeable [according to this layman, and this can be ascertained] via publicity.


                        B. THOSE WHO TOLERATED FOR THE MADHHAB-ADHERING LAYMAN TO ADOPT A ‘NON-MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’ VERDICT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER FROM INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE MADDHAB

                        9-10. Regarding Abū ʿAlī ál-Ḥusayn bin 'l-Khaḍir ál-Nasafī (died 424 A.H.), Ibn Māzah Maḥmūd bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz ál-Bukhārī (died 616 A.H.) said (Ál-Muḥīṭ ál-Burhānī, 4/255, ál-Majlis ál-ʿIlmī Johannesburg, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):
                        An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife... This is what has been reported... from... Justice Abū ʿAlī ál-Nasafī (May Allāh have mercy on him).

                        11-12. Dāwūd bin Yūsuf ál-Khaṭīb (died post-600 A.H.?) – quoting Shams 'l-A'immaħ ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad bin Naṣr ál-Ḥalwānī (died 448 A.H.) – said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Ghiyāthiyyaħ, pg. 85, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1321 A.H.): An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.

                        13. Ál-Ḥasan bin Manṣūr ál-Ūzjandī (died 592 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Qāḍī Khān (printed alongside ál-Fatāwā ál-Hindiyyaħ), 2/453, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 2nd edition, 1310 A.H.):
                        [In fact], an even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists (May Allāh have mercy on them)... if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife. It has [also] been reported from them if a person facing a situation asks a jurist and he replied that the suspension is redundant, he can retain [his wife], and if he married another after [the first]... and asked another jurist... who replied that the suspension was correct and his divorce occurs with [his suspension], then he would separate himself from the second woman, but can still retain the first. This is [all] because the verdict given by a jurist to an ignorant person is tantamount to the verdict of a judge who has been appointed to the case, or the award of an arbiter.

                        14. Yūsuf bin Abī Saʿīd ál-Sijistānī (died post-638 A.H.?) said (Munyaŧ 'l-Muftī, pg. 63, Houghton Library, Harvard University Cambridge MA):
                        An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.

                        15. Ibn 'l-Bazzāz Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Shihāb bin Yūsuf ál-Kardarī (died 827 A.H.) said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Bazzāziyyaħ, pg. 304, British Museum London manuscript):
                        An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.


                        C. THOSE WHO OBLIGED THE LAYMAN TO EXCERCISE TARJĪḤ IN THE CASE OF CONFLICTING VERDICTS RATHER THAN ADHERE TO THE ‘MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’ OF A MADHHAB

                        16. Abū 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Qudūrī (died 428 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):
                        When we have established that the layman can perform Ijtihād in choosing Muftis, can he now perform Ijtihād in verdicts themselves in which he is to perform Taqlīd, i.e. if he thinks that a particular verdict of a particular jurist is more stronger, does he have to follow that verdict? Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and ál-Qudūrī differed over this: ál-Qudūrī obligated this...

                        17. ʿAyn 'l-A'immaħ ʿUmar ál-Karābīsī (died pre-600 A.H.) said (taken from Qunyaŧ 'l-Munyaħ by ál-Zāhidī (died 658 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7382, pg. 93):
                        [If] a [layman] asks two Ḥanafī Muftīs and they pass opposite verdicts, like that of lawfulness and prohibition, or that of correctness and incorrectness, then [he] should take the [negative] verdict in worship, and the [positive] verdict in dealings.


                        D. THOSE WHO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A LAYMAN CAN ADOPT ANY SCHOLAR’S OPINION

                        18. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Ṣaymarī (died 436 A.H.), is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/311-312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):
                        Abū Isḥāq ál-Shīrāzī said: A man came to the Ḥanafī jurist ál-Ṣaymarī with the Shāfiʿī verdict that if a marriage representative is a sinner and her husband divorced her thrice that the divorce would not pass, and may marry her with a new contract [as the previous contracted never existed]. Ál-Ṣaymarī said, "They have told you that, all this time, you were with an illegal pudenda, and that she can become legal for you today [with a new contract]! I am telling you that she was legal for you all this time until you divorced her, and now she is illegal for you!" By this, ál-Ṣaymarī intended to sway the layman to the Ḥanafī School. (Abū Isḥāq says) I came to Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and told him he story. He replied, "... but Allāh has not ordained the layman to follow ál-Ṣaymarī; rather he has ordained him to follow any scholar he wishes, so when the layman follows a trustworthy Shāfiʿī, he would have liberated himself of sin and liability until the Day of Judgement."

                        19. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Ḥamīd ál-Usmandī (died 552 A.H.), said (Badhl 'l-Naẓr Fī ál-Uṣūl, pg. 693-694, Maktabaŧ Dār 'l-Turāth Cairo, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.):
                        If another legalist has a difference of opinion with [the layman's] Mufti, the [layman's] legalist can give the layman a choice whether he wants to take his opinion or the other Mufti's opinion, because both opinions are from Ijtihād.

                        20. Muẓaffar 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Sāʿātī Aḥmad bin ʿAlī bin Taghlib ál-Baʿlabakkī (died 694 A.H.) said (Badīʿ 'l-Niẓām ál-Jāmiʿ Bayn Kitābay 'l-Bazdawī Wa-'l-Iḥkām, pg. 684-685, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1405 A.H.):
                        If there are multiple Mujtahids, a Muqallid can follow whoever he likes even if [the Mujtahids] differ in status. It is narrated from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that it is necessary [for the Muqallid] to look out for the most preferred [Mujtahid]. Our evidence is that, in the time of the Companions, the lower-ranked [Mujtahids] were – openly and repeatedly – asked for and passed legal verdicts, yet nobody condemned [this practice]...

                        21. Akmal 'l-Dīn ál-Bābartī (died 786 A.H.) said (Ál-Rudūd Wa-'l-Nuqūd ʿAlā Mukhtaṣar Ibn 'l-Ḥājib, 2/732, Maktabaŧ 'l-Rushd, Riyadh, 1426 A.H. edition):
                        The preferable opinion is that it is permissible [to take another Mujtahid's opinion]... because laymen have always done Taqlīd of one Mujtahid in one issue and another in another issue, and this was never condemned, so therefore this is a consensus on its permissibility.

                        22. ʿAlī Ibn Abī 'l-ʿIzz (died 792 A.H.), author of Sharḥ Mushkilāt 'l-Hidāyaħ, said (Ál-Ittibāʿ, pg. 80, ál-Maktabaħ ál-Salafiyyaħ, Lahore, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.):
                        The most that can be said is that it is permissible or appropriate or obligatory for the layman to do Taqlīd of one of the Imāms without specification of any Zayd or ʿAmr.

                        23. Abū Sayf Yaḥyā bin Yūsuf ál-Sīrāmī (died 833 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār by ál-ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50):
                        The main Muftīs of Egypt agreed with me on [the issue that a person who affiliates himself to one school can follow a jurist from another school in any particular issue, due to the jurist being possibly correct in the eyes of Allāh].

                        24. Qarq Amīr ál-Ḥamīdī (died 860 A.H.), author of Jāmiʿ 'l-Fatāwā (manuscript), said (taken from ál-Inṣāf by Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.)):
                        If a [layman practising on] Ḥanafī [law] said, ‘If I marry so and so, she is divorced three times’, then he asked a Shāfiʿī [scholar about his], and he told him that she would not be divorced should he marry her, [stating] that his statement was redundant, there would be no problem [for the layman] in following ál-Shāfiʿī in this issue, because there are many Companions of this opinion.

                        25. Ibn 'l-Humām (died 861 A.H.), commentator on ál-Marghīnānī’s ál-Hidāyaħ, said (Fatḥ 'l-Qadīr, 7/238-239, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):
                        If this ‘adhering to’ is meant, then [realise that] there is no legal evidence that obligates following one particular Mujtahid by virtue of obligating it upon one’s own self either via explicating it or by intending it; rather such an obligation is only via evidence and the necessity of implementing the ruling of the Mujtahid in what arises for him as is pointed out in the verse of ‘Ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know’, and [the obligation of] ‘asking’ only arises when the particular situation [requiring the ruling] arises. In this case, if the Mujtahid’s verdict is established to him, he must implement it. Usually, such self-obligations [of adhering to a school or a Mujtahid] are done due to prevent people from following up specifically on dispensations; otherwise the layman would take the easiest opinion in every issue. However, I don’t know what logic or legal text actually prohibits this, and I don’t know of any condemnation from the law against a person who follows up on dispensations via the verdicts of qualified Mujtahids who can be followed. Also, the Prophet loved to make it affairs easy for his believing community.

                        26. Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj (died 879 A.H.) - explaining "The layman not possessing a school" - said (Ál-Taqrīr Wa-'l-Taḥbīr, 3/350, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1316 A.H.):
                        ... because a school is only for that person who has a degree of analysis, ability to evidence and have an insight of the schools as he is capable, or one who read a text on the legal issues of that school and becomes acquainted with the verdicts of his Imām and his statements... As the layman is ignorant of the modus operandi of the Imām of the school he is ascribing himself to, and as long as he is ignorant of his methodology, how can this layman ascribe himself to the Imām's school? To the contrary, his ascription to a school would be a mere claim, and it would be a statement that is void of any real meaning... There is consensus that a Muslim can do Taqlīd of whichever scholar he wishes without restriction. Whoever says anything to the contrary, the burden of proof is on them... It is not correct for a layman to ascribe himself to a school. Such a person would not be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī, even if he claims to be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī... If a layman took it upon himself to follow one school, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ, Malik, ál-Shāfi'ī or Ahmed, it would not be obligatory upon him to adhere to that school, because Allāh made no such obligations upon him, nor did Allāh or His Prophet ever ordered anyone to adopt a school.

                        27. Yūsuf bin Ḥusayn ál-Kirmāstī (died 906 A.H.) said (Ál-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 318, Dār 'l-Hudā Cairo, 1st edition, 1404 A.H.)
                        [What is preferred is] the permissibility for a Muqallid to follow a lesser Mujtahid when there is a multitude of Mujtahids of differing levels [in their skill and knowledge]. It is however reported from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that [asking] the best [Mujtahid] is binding on that layman. And when a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in an issue, he cannot discard it in favour of a [different opinion in the same issue] by agreement [of the scholars]. As for the opinion of [another Mujtahid] in another issue [that is separate from the issue in which he has already implemented one the opinion of one Mujtahid], the preferred opinion is that it is permissible to follow that other scholar.

                        28. Ibn Nujaym (died 970 A.H.), the commentator on Kanz 'l-Daqā'iq, said (Ál-Baḥr ál-Rā'iq, 6/292, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-ʿIlmiyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1311 A.H.)
                        Chapter: "It is permissible to follow any Mujtahid one wishes", even when the schools of law are compiled (as is the case today), and he can also change from his [previously-adopted] legal position, but not out of constantly following up on dispensations...

                        29. Muḥammad Ḥayāt ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), footnoting on Ibn Nujaym’s statement, said (Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām, pg. 56, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):
                        What he has mentioned is what the Qurān, the prophetic tradition and the statements of the best scholars of old and new have indicated towards. The opinion of anyone opposing this would not be taken into consideration...

                        30. Amīr Bādshāh (died 972 A.H.?) reproduced the Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj's words in the other commentary of ál-Taḥrīr (4/253, Taysīr 'l-Taḥrīr, Maktabaŧ 'l-Maʿārif, Riyadh, 1403 A.H.).

                        31. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Tumurtāshī (died 1004 A.H.), author of Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, said (Muʿīn 'l-Muftī ʿAlā Jawāb 'l-Mustaftī, Imām Muḥammad bin Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 2052):
                        It is permissible [for a Muqallid] to follow a lesser Mujtahid [even] in the presence of a better Mujtahid. Aḥmad and many jurists, however, do not allow this. The first opinion is based on the fact that lesser Companions used to be asked for legal rulings [by lay Muslims in the presence of greater Companions, and this was done] without any condemnation levelled at the questioner... and on that a layman cannot execute preference [between multiple Mujtahids].

                        32. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Malik ál-Baghdādī (died 1016 A.H.) said (taken from Khulāṣaŧ 'l-Taḥqīq Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.), pg. 5, Maktabaŧ 'l-Ḥaqīqaħ Istanbul, 1420 A.H.):
                        Realise that the position of the majority, which was chosen by Ibn 'l-Humām, is that the adherence [to a school of law] in itself is not the primary obligation; rather it is permissible for anyone to ask in any matter whichever scholar he chooses and implement his verdict thereafter, as was the case in the better eras [i.e. that] of the Companions and those who came after them, may Allah be pleased with them all.

                        33. Mullā ‘Alī ál-Qārī (died 1040 A.H.) said (taken from Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām by Muḥammad Ḥayāħ ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), pg. 33-34, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):
                        It is not obligatory upon anyone from the believing community to be a Ḥanafī, or a Shāfiʿī, or a Mālikī; rather, what is obligatory upon each person, if he is not a scholar, to follow one of these great scholars, as Allāh said, “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know”...

                        34. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAẓīm ál-Makkī (died 1061 A.H.) said (Ál-Qawl ál-Sadīd Fī Baʿḍ Masā'il 'l-Ijtihād Wa-'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 301789, pg. 4)
                        Know that Abū Hanīfaħ, Mālik, ál-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad bin Ḥanbal are all the People of Knowledge who must be asked and followed by whom who is not a Mujtahid. If any Muqallid implements in his purity or prayer or anything else the opinion of any one of these, either out of Taqlīd, or without even knowing he had implemented it when he was doing what he did... then he would have discharged his obligation. No Muqallid or even Mujtahid can condemn him for doing so, as has been well documented in more than one book as is the case according to us [Ḥanafīs]...

                        35. Ḥasan bin ʿAmmār ál-Shurunbulālī (died 1069 A.H.), author of Nūr 'l-•ḍāḥ, said (Ál-ʿIqd ál-Farīd Li-Bayān 'l-Rājiḥ Min 'l-Khilāf Fī Jawāz 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 324506, pg. 11):
                        ... because [a layman's] adherence [to one Mujtahid] is not something that is legally obligated...

                        36. Aḥmad bin Muḥammad ál-Ḥamawī (died 1098), the commentator on Ibn Nujaym’s ál-Ashbāh Wa-'l-Naẓā'ir, said (Ál-Durr ál-Farīd Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 327244, pg. 9):
                        It is gained from what we have said that a person does not have to adhere to one particular school...

                        37-38. The author of the base text Musallam 'l-Thubūt (died 1119 A.H.) was Muḥibb 'llah bin ʿAbd 'l-Shakūr ál-Bihārī. The commentator on the book, Muḥammad bin Niẓām 'l-Dīn ál-Sahālawī (died 1225 A.H.) in Fawātiḥ 'l-Raḥamūt, said (printed beneath ál-Ghazālī’s ál-Mustaṣfā, 2/406, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1324 A.H.):
                        It is not necessary to stay on the school, and it is correct to switch to another, and this is the truth that should be believed in, but changing should not be done out of desires, as following desires is prohibited in both adopting a school and in other issues of law. (He refers to some later extremist Ḥanafīs in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as simulators (Mutakallifīn) who adopted hard handedness (Tashaddud).)

                        39. ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.) said (Nihāyaŧ 'l-Murād Fī Sharḥ Hadiyyaŧ Ibn 'l-ʿImād, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6918, pg. 122):
                        As for placing necessity as a prerequisite for a Ḥanafī to follow another Imām, you have already learned previously that this [prerequisite is placed] for preserve [oneself] from following dispensations across the legal schools. Otherwise, necessity in itself is not necessary for following [any one of] the Four Imāms [outside of his Madhhab of practise] once the prerequisites of their respective schools’ legal rulings are fulfilled [when implementing those rulings]. This is because a legally-bound person has a choice of following any one of them in any situation that may arise – as stated before – without the need for [this legally-bound person] to prefer one [Imām’s] deduction over another [Imām’s] deduction.

                        40. Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Inṣāf):
                        ... if he is in the Ḥaramayn [or any place where there are scholars of multiple schools, then he may ask any scholar]...

                        41. Khwājah Zādah Muḥammad Rāsim ál-Malāṭī (died 1316 A.H.) said (Minjāŧ 'l-Wuṣūl Sharḥ Mirqāŧ 'l-Uṣūl, Istanbul University manuscript number 2172, pg. 294):
                        In the case of multiple Mujtahids, it is permissible to follow the lesser in favour of the greater, even when the greater in passing verdicts is present. It has been said that the greater in passing verdicts would become binding [and should be followed], and it would not [even] be permissible for the lesser to pass verdicts in [the greater's] presence.

                        42. ʿAbd 'l-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddaħ (died 1417 A.H.) quoted Ibn Amīr 'l-Ḥājj (footnotes of ál-Iḥkām by ál-Qarāfī (died 684 A.H.), pg. 231, Maktab 'l-Maṭbūʿāt ál-Islāmiyyaħ Aleppo, 2nd edition, 1416 A.H.):
                        If [a layman] adopts a particular school of law, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ or ál-Shāfiʿī, then it has been said: "It will be upon him to adhere to it". It has [also] been said: "[It will] not [be upon him to adhere to it]", and this is more correct.
                        [COLOR]


                        E. THOSE WHO PROHIBITED A LAYMAN TO DISCARD A VERDICT HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT MAY BE ‘MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’ OR NOT

                        43. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAli bin 'l-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad ál-Sughdī (died 461 A.H.) said (Ál-Nutaf Fī ál-Fatāwā, 2/861, Mu'assasaŧ 'l-Risālaħ Beirut, 2nd edition, 1404 A.H.):
                        Similarly, if it was a learned person facing an issue [of potential divorce after he uttered something to his wife], so he asked a jurist regarding [what he uttered to his wife], and [the jurist] passed the verdict of [her] legality or illegality [upon him], but [the questioner] did not set himself upon the verdict [to occur on his wife] nor did he pass it on [his wife], but rather asked another jurist, and [this second jurist] passed a verdict that was opposite to the first jurist’s verdict, and [the questioner] passed [this second verdict on his wife] and set himself upon [this second verdict] for himself and his wife, and he abandoned the verdict of the first jurist, then [the second verdict] would become binding upon him. He cannot [now] take the first jurist’s verdict by discarding [the second] verdict which he had set himself upon...
                        If a jurist gave [the questioner] a verdict, but he did not set upon it in regards to his wife nor did he pass it on her before having asked another jurist, then it is permissible for him to take either of the verdicts him, set himself upon it and pass it [on his wife].

                        44. Ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd Abū Muḥammad ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz (died 536 A.H.) said in his ál-Fatāwā ál-Ṣughrā (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                        If a person asked for a verdict, and one scholar passed the verdict of permissibility, then another passé the verdict of illegality after the questioner had implemented the verdict of the first, then he [can] implement the verdict of the second in relation to another wife [of his], but not in relation to his first wife.

                        45. Ibrāhīm bin Ḥusayn Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), footnoting of the statement of ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd, said (Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                        Understand that this person is not adhering to the position of the first scholar, but rather only followed him in one issue.

                        46. Abū Naṣr Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-ʿAttābī (died 586 A.H.) said in his Jawāmiʿ 'l-Fiqh (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                        If a layman is given different verdicts by the Muftīs, he would be obliged by the verdict he chooses and sets himself upon. It has [also] been said that [he would be obliged by] the first verdict [that was given to him]. Once he chooses one, then he came to face the same situation [at another time], he should not abandon [the verdict he had implemented].

                        47. ʿAlā' 'l-Dīn Abū Bakr bin Masʿūd ál-Kāsānī (died 787 A.H.) said (Badā'iʿ 'l-Ṣanā'iʿ, 7/6, Dār 'l-Kitāb ál-ʿArabī Beirut, 2nd edition, 1394 A.H.):
                        Also, if a person is not a jurist, and he asked a jurist about something and he gave him his opinion of lawfulness or illegality, and he did not implement that opinion, then another jurist gave him a different opinion and he took it and implemented it in his wife [vis-a-vis divorce (etc.)], then this non-jurist cannot abandon the opinion he implemented in favour of the first jurist's opinion, because adhering to what one implements is obligatory.

                        48. Muḥammad bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Fanārī (died 834 A.H.) said (Fuṣūl 'l-Badā'iʿ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Sharā'iʿ, 2/498, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1427 A.H.):
                        A layman who has implemented a Mujtahid’s opinion in a particular issue cannot – by agreement – discard it in favour of another [opinion]. As for another issue [in which this layman has not implemented any opinion], the preferred position is the permissibility of following another [Mujtahid] due to its definite, widespread and well-known occurrence without condemnation in the era of the Companions (may God be pleased with them) [and] without being forced to ask one Muftī only. As for when one [wishes to] adhere to a particular school like that of Abū Ḥanīfaħ (may God be pleased with him), it has been said has it would be binding [upon him to adhere to it]. It has [also] been said that it [still] not be binding upon him [i.e.] he cannot discard [the verdict] of [the Imām he wishes to adhere to] in those scenarios that have occurred and he has followed him, [but] he may follow whomever he wishes in any other [scenario] apart from [what he has already practised upon an opinion in].

                        49. Muḥammad bin ʿAlī ál-Ḥaṣkafī (died 1088) said (Ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār Sharḥ Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, pg. 16, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.):
                        To discard what one has already implemented via following [a scholar] is - by agreement - illegal, and this is the preferred position of the [Ḥanafī] School.

                        50. Abū Saʿīd Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā ál-Khādimī (died 1176 A.H.) said (Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 304849, pg. 48):
                        When a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in any given scenario, he may not defect to [another Mujtahid's verdict, and this is] agreed upon. As for [taking another Mujtahid's opinion] in another legal scenario, the preferred position is that of permissibility.

                        51. Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā (was alive 1246 A.H.) agreed with ál-Khādimī (Manāfiʿ 'l-Daqā'iq Sharḥ Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, pg. 304, Dār 'l-ibāʿāħ ál-ʿĀmiraħ Istanbul edition, 1306 A.H.)

                        52. Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥalabī (died 1190 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-Ḥalabī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 3495, pg. 6):
                        The example [of the impermissibility of discarding what one has already implemented as a Muqallid] is a Ḥanafī following Mālik in marriage via announcement [but] without witnesses, who then wishes to discard following [Mālik after the marriage contract by not giving the marriage gift (Mahr) to his wife based on the Ḥanafī position]. He cannot do so [as this would lead to the severe type of Talfīq in which both schools agree the marriage is invalid].

                        In the commentary of this statement, the following was stated:
                        53. Abū ʿĀṣim Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-ʿĀmirī (died around 400 A.H.) (taken from Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār by ál-ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50-51)
                        used to pass verdicts by the door of [ál-Qāsim bin Muḥammad] ál-Qaffāl's [a Shāfiʿī - died around 400 A.H.] mosque. The [Shāfiʿī] muezzin [once] called for prayer, so [ál-ʿĀmirī] left [his place] and entered the mosque. When ál-Qaffāl saw him, he ordered the muezzin to double the prayer announcement (i.e. the Iqāmaħ) [as per the Ḥanafī position] and put forward the judge [i.e. Abū ʿĀṣim ál-Āmirī to lead prayer]. He stepped forward [to lead], read Basmallaħ aloud and performed prayer in the Shāfiʿī manner.

                        54. Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ismāʿīl ál-ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50):
                        What is impermissible is to discard [the ruling one has already implemented] in a past scenario [that occurred to him], not a scenario of the same genre that would occur in the future.

                        55. Ibn ʿĀbidīn (died 1252 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ Ibn ʿĀbidīn ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, 4/598, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1415 A.H.):
                        When a questioner implements the verdict of a Muftī in one situation, then another [Muftī] gave him a verdict different to that of the first, he cannot break his action in that situation [based on the second verdict]. However, he may implement [the verdict of the second Muftī] in another situation. For example, a person performs Ẓuhr after touching an alien woman by following Abū Ḥanīfaħ [that ablution does not break], then he [wished to] follow ál-Shāfiʿī [that ablution breaks, and this was after having performed the day’s Ẓuhr], he cannot nullify that Ẓuhr, but he can follow the verdict of ál-Shāfiʿī for another [day’s] Ẓuhr. This is what is meant by the statement of those who say ‘A Muqallid cannot discard his legal position.’


                        F. THOSE WHO ACKNOWLEDGED THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER A MADHHAB-ADHERING LAYMAN IS OBLIGED TO ADHERE TO HIS MADHHAB OR NOT

                        56. ʿAbd 'l-Sayyid ál-Khaṭībī (died 489 A.H.) said (taken from ál-Jawāhir ál-Muḍiyyaħ Fī Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanafiyyaħ by Abū 'l-Wafā' ál-Qurashī (died 775), 2/425-426, Dār Hajar Giza, 2nd edition 1413 A.H.)
                        was asked regarding the one who suspended three divorces upon marrying her, then was told that it would not occur according to the opinion of ál-Shāfiʿī, so he took his opinion on the basis that ál-Shāfiʿī is a reliable Mujtahid – can he stay with her or not [after marrying her, since the Ḥanafī position is that three divorces would automatically occur upon marriage]. He replied: “According to our ʿIrāqī Mashāyikh, yes; according to our Khurāsānī Mashāyikh, no.”


                        G. THOSE WHO DID NOT OBLIGE A MUQALLID JUDGE TO ADHERE TO THE ‘MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’ OF HIS MADHHAB

                        57-58. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Khalīl ál-Ṭarābalusī (died 844 A.H.) quoted Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-Nāṭifī (died 446 A.H.) who said (Muʿīn 'l-Ḥukkām by, pg. 30, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Maymaniyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1310 A.H.):
                        A scholar passes verdict according to the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfaħ; another according to the opinion of Abū Yūsuf; another according to the opinion of Muḥammad or Zufar; [whatever the difference of opinion within the Ḥanafī School, the non-Mujtahid judge] cannot take the opinion of ál-Shāfiʿī or Mālik [when passing judgement].

                        59. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 47, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                        If a female minor was married off by her representative to a male minor in the testimony of transgressors and the father of [the male minor] accepted, then they reached adulthood but there was remote absence between the couple, the [Ḥanafī] judge is allowed to send [the case of the female] to a Shāfiʿi [judge] to annul the marriage based on this reason. The Ḥanafī judge may himself execute this also by taking [the Shāfiʿi] position, even though it is not be his own position...

                        60. Abū 'l-Thanā' Maḥmūd bin Zayd ál-Lāmishī (was alive 539 A.H.) said (pg. 201, unnamed Usūl book, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, A.H.):
                        When he reaches this limit that we have mentioned, it would be legal for him to pass legal verdicts to whoever questions him via his personal opinion and Ijtihād. But if he has not reached this level and was asked in an issue, then he may answer if he knows the statement of the predecessors, otherwise not.


                        H. THOSE WHO OBLIGED THE LAYMAN TO EXECUTE TARJĪḤ BEFORE CHOOSING A MADHHAB TO ADHERE TO AS A PURE LEGAL VIEWPOINT AND NOT DUE TO MAṢLAḤAH OR FEARS OF FOLLOWING DESIRES OR DISPENSATION, AND WITHOUT OBLIGING UPON THE LAYMEN OF THE UMMAH THE ACT OF EXECUTING TARJĪḤ PER SE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE FOR THE MERE SAKE OF ADOPTING A MADHHAB, AND WITHOUT BULLYING THOSE LAYMEN WHO HAVE NO MADHHAB PREFERENCE INTO ADOPTING A PARTICULAR MADHHAB

                        61. In the era of Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin Isḥāq ál-Jūzjānī (died pre-300 A.H.) (taken from ál-Ḥāwī by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥaṣīrī (died 500 A.H.) as quoted in Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 333, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437),
                        it is reported that a man from the [Ḥanafīs] asked a person from the People of Ḥadīth for his daughter’s hand in marriage. [The father] denied him unless that he abandoned his school for the school of the People of Ḥadīth, [i.e.] he reads behind the Imām, raises his hands before going into prostration, etc. [The Ḥanafī] did so, and the father married him off to her. After having been asked of the incident and lowering his head for a moment in silence, [Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin Isḥāq ál-Jūzjānī] told the public audience, “The marriage is valid, but I fear that the Faith of this person shall be taken when his soul is extracted... because he made a mockery the school he believed to be the truth according to him, left it for a stinking corpse, and adopted a school which he does not believe to be the truth. I really fear for his Faith as he has made a mockery out of the religion... [But] if a person leaves his school in one issue or multiple issues via [legitimate] Ijtihād via evidence that occurred to him from the Qurān and Sunnaħ etc., then he cannot be blamed or criticised; rather he would be praiseworthy and rewarded, and it would be permissible for him.”

                        62. In the era of Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī 'l-Layth ál-Bukhārī (died post-300 A.H.) (taken from ál-Ḥāwī by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥaṣīrī (died 500 A.H.) as quoted in Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 333, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437),
                        it is reported that a person from our [Ḥanafī] legalists used to frequently go to Muḥammad bin Naṣr ál-Marwazī [died 294 A.H.] the Ḥadīth scholar and used to write Ḥadīth from him... Muḥammad bin Naṣr respected him and treated him well. Then this person started raising his hands in prayer. This was mentioned to [Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī 'l-Layth] and he did not regard him highly after that. [Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī 'l-Layth] said, “The reason why I do not hold him in high regard is because [he] did not hold his religion and school in high regard: he abandoned the school he believed to be the correct one for years and left it without any evidence that would oblige him to leave it.”

                        63. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Bazdawī (died 482 A.H.) was asked whether a Ḥanafī switching to the Shāfiʿi School can be deemed as an apostate, and whether his testimony can be accepted or not, so he replied (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 251, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                        It is inappropriate to say to him [that he became an apostate] as he would not have exited the fold of Islām due to this. As for [his] testimony, then if he is a jurist and his Ijtihād led him to this [conclusion that the Shāfiʿi School is superior] and he is religious [about this], his testimony would [still] be accepted. [But] if one switched due to carelessness in belief [i.e. he switched despite believing that that the Ḥanafī School is superior] and out of [mere] audacity to switch from one school to another based on his own [baseless] view and predilection for some personal gain, then his testimony would not be accepted.

                        64. Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥaṣīrī (died 500 A.H.), footnoting on the aforementioned incident of Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin Isḥāq ál-Jūzjānī (died pre-300 A.H.), said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 333, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                        This is how the actions of the earlier Imāms were. As for the one who is not from those who are qualified for Ijtihād, and move from one opinion to another without evidence for some worldly gain or desire, then he is blameworthy, a transgressor and deserves disciplining and reprimand for committing an evil act, and making a mockery out of the religion and his school [which for] him is the truth.

                        65. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 51, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                        If a Ḥanafī facing a situation asks a Shāfiʿi and he told him that divorce would not occur, it would not be correct for [the Ḥanafī to take this verdict]. Only his belief [in the preference of the Ḥanafī School over the Shāfiʿi School] would be considered, so if he does something that goes against his belief, it would be religiously illegal for him.

                        66-67Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad ál-Kirmānī (died 543 A.H.) was asked (taken from Yatīmaŧ 'l-Dahr Fī Fatāwā Ahl 'l-ʿAṣr, ál-Maktabaħ ál-Azhariyyaħ Cairo manuscript no. 26958 by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm bin ʿUmar bin Muḥammad ál-Tarjumānī (died pre-600 A.H?.), ál-Maktabaħ ál-Azhariyyaħ Cairo manuscript no. 26958, pg. 129)
                        regarding one who is afflicted with scabs and ulcers to the extent that wet ablution for each obligatory prayer is difficult for him whether he could take the position of ál-Shāfiʿī. I [i.e. ál-Tarjumānī] was present [there too]. He replied, ‘No, but if the water is harmful to him then he may perform dry ablution and then perform prayer.’

                        68. Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.) said (Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā, pg. 318, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                        As for the lay Muslims, it is not in the power of each and every one of them to execute preference between evidences and perform Ijtihād; but it is appropriate for them to prefer an Imām and follow him. Once [the layman] contemplates and thus chooses one Imām over another and sees the correctness in the [legal] method [of his Imām], the verdicts of other Imāms would have been invalidated for him, and he cannot practise upon their schools, just like a Mujtahid cannot practise upon other evidences once he sees a particular piece of evidence as the correct one.

                        69. ʿUmar bin Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Āmidī (died 1200 A.H.?) said (Sharḥ 'l-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, King ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz Library Madinah manuscript number 1096):
                        Amongst these issues is the topic of the permissibility [or impermissibility] of exiting one particular school to another after having taken it upon oneself to adhere to [the first]. [The first position] is that it is not permissible, as he has taken it upon himself to adhere [to it], even though the act of adherence is not obligatory itself was not obligatory [upon him] in the first place. [The other opinion] is that it is permissible, and to adhere to what one takes upon oneself is not binding. [The third opinion] is that it is impermissible in some issues and permissible in others – a middle path between the [first] two opinions: so it would be permissible in those issues in which he has not practised upon the opinion [of the school he has taken upon himself to adhere to, and this is based on] what has just been mentioned in regards to the practise of the non-adhering [Muqallid].

                        70. Muḥammad Zāhid ál-Kawtharī (died 1371 A.H.) said (Iḥqāq 'l-Ḥaqq, part of a series on ál-Kawtharī’s legal and jurisprudential works, pg. 152, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):
                        In the commentary of Tanqīḥ 'l-Fuṣūl, ál-Shihāb Aḥmad bin Idrīs ál-Qarāfī said, “Consensus has been established on that whosoever accepts Islām, he may follows any scholar he wishes without restriction. The Companions (may Allah’s be pleased with them) had a consensus that whoever asked Abū Bakr or ʿUmar, or followed them [for that matter], he had the choice of asking Abū Hurayraħ and Muʿādh bin Jabal (and others [as well]), and could implement the opinion of the [latter] two without condemnation. Whosoever claims that these two consensuses no longer apply, the burden of proof is on him”...
                        The ramification of this double-consensus is that people are have a choice of following any one of the followed Imāms via the modes of preference that may appear to them, without obliging all the Muslims to follow one particular Imām amongst them...
                        And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                        he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                        because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                        and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                        (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          as-Salaamu Alykum akhi and Baarak Allahu feekum for your effort,

                          I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put this questions, so please have patience with me insha'Allah.

                          You were mentioning the topic of what it means to "be" Hanafi or any other madhhab. I was wondering what you thought of my explanation for what this term means. For me, the term is similar to someone going to Yale, Harvard or Princeton to learn law. Each school has its scholars, books, and curriculum. So a person who studies a madhhab is more or less studying a prestigious "university's" curriculum.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Usool as-Sunnah View Post
                            You were mentioning the topic of what it means to "be" Hanafi or any other madhhab. I was wondering what you thought of my explanation for what this term means. For me, the term is similar to someone going to Yale, Harvard or Princeton to learn law. Each school has its scholars, books, and curriculum. So a person who studies a madhhab is more or less studying a prestigious "university's" curriculum.
                            Indeed. This is one opinion, that the terms Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali etc. only apply to scholars and students of knowledge. I personally prefer this terminology.

                            The other application of these terms is the person who adheres to one of these Madhhabs, especially the layman. In this case, a lay person can only be a Hanafi etc. if he goes about adhering to it in a manner that is classically acceptable, i.e. by executing a layman's Tarjeeh before opting for a Madhhab.

                            This is an issue of terminology. So it's not a big deal.

                            What is a big deal though is people claiming to be Hanafi and supporters of the Hanafi Madhhab when they know nothing about it, and lay people claiming to be Hanafi by being born into it without having actually executed Tarjih in determining what Madhhab they want to adopt. This was condemned by al-Dabusi.

                            Some may come up with the 'accessibility' argument, i.e. how can a layman do Tarjih when there is only one Madhhab in his city?

                            Well, the first answer to this first of all is that nobody obliged the layman to do Tarjih in the first place, and he can still be a non-adhering layman.

                            The second answer is that all the Madhhabs within a forty-eight mile radius from his house must be taken into consideration, which is the minimum distance of Safar, not beyond that. So I would argue that he must get off his backside and investigate what the best Madhhab is to the best of his ability within this radius. My Hanafi teacher of Qira'ah told me that if there is no proficient reciter of the Quran in a forty-eight mile radius, he must do Hijrah. By way of Takhrij, I would personally say that he must travel within this distance to locate scholars of all Madhhabs, after which he would do Tarjih if he wants to.

                            The third answer is applicable to those connected to the online world today, i.e. there is no such thing these days a person who is totally cut off from other Madhhabs.

                            There are other answers to this too, but I'll leave it for now.
                            And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                            he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                            because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                            and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                            (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              ḤANAFĪ AUTHORITIES BY CENTURY (A.H.) WHO DID NOT OBLIGE
                              THE CONTEMPORARY VERSIONS OF SINGLE-MADHHAB TAQLĪD UPON THE LAYMAN



                              THIRD CENTURY A.H.

                              In the era of Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin Isḥāq ál-Jūzjānī (died pre-300 A.H.) (taken from ál-Ḥāwī by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥaṣīrī (died 500 A.H.) as quoted in Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 333, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437),
                              it is reported that a man from the [Ḥanafīs] asked a person from the People of Ḥadīth for his daughter’s hand in marriage. [The father] denied him unless that he abandoned his school for the school of the People of Ḥadīth, [i.e.] he reads behind the Imām, raises his hands before going into prostration, etc. [The Ḥanafī] did so, and the father married him off to her. After having been asked of the incident and lowering his head for a moment in silence, [Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin Isḥāq ál-Jūzjānī] told the public audience, “The marriage is valid, but I fear that the Faith of this person shall be taken when his soul is extracted... because he made a mockery the school he believed to be the truth according to him, left it for a stinking corpse, and adopted a school which he does not believe to be the truth. I really fear for his Faith as he has made a mockery out of the religion... [But] if a person leaves his school in one issue or multiple issues via [legitimate] Ijtihād via evidence that occurred to him from the Qurān and Sunnaħ etc., then he cannot be blamed or criticised; rather he would be praiseworthy and rewarded, and it would be permissible for him.”

                              In the era of Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī 'l-Layth ál-Bukhārī (died post-300 A.H.) (taken from ál-Ḥāwī by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥaṣīrī (died 500 A.H.) as quoted in Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 333, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437),
                              it is reported that a person from our [Ḥanafī] legalists used to frequently go to Muḥammad bin Naṣr ál-Marwazī [died 294 A.H.] the Ḥadīth scholar and used to write Ḥadīth from him... Muḥammad bin Naṣr respected him and treated him well. Then this person started raising his hands in prayer. This was mentioned to [Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī 'l-Layth] and he did not regard him highly after that. [Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī 'l-Layth] said, “The reason why I do not hold him in high regard is because [he] did not hold his religion and school in high regard: he abandoned the school he believed to be the correct one for years and left it without any evidence that would oblige him to leave it.”



                              FOURTH CENTURY A.H.


                              Abū Bakr ál-Jaṣṣāṣ ál-Rāzī (died 370 A.H.) said (Ál-Fuṣūl Fī ál-Uṣūl, 4/282-3, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Kuwait, 2nd edition, 1414 A.H.):
                              Because it is established that a layman must ask scholars, then either he has a choice of asking any, or he should do Ijtihād and ask the most knowledgeable and fearing according to [the concerned layman]... some said that he must ask the knowledgeable and fearful according to [the concerned layman]... and this is the correct opinion according to us... then it is impermissible for him... to do Taqlīd without Ijtihād, because [surely] he possesses this type of Ijtihād.



                              FIFTH CENTURY A.H.


                              In the commentary of Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥalabī's statement, the following is said:
                              Abū ʿĀṣim Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-ʿĀmirī (died around 400 A.H.) (taken from Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār by ál-ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50-51)
                              used to pass verdicts by the door of [ál-Qāsim bin Muḥammad] ál-Qaffāl's [a Shāfiʿī - died around 400 A.H.] mosque. The [Shāfiʿī] muezzin [once] called for prayer, so [ál-ʿĀmirī] left [his place] and entered the mosque. When ál-Qaffāl saw him, he ordered the muezzin to double the prayer announcement (i.e. the Iqāmaħ) [as per the Ḥanafī position] and put forward the judge [i.e. Abū ʿĀṣim ál-Āmirī to lead prayer]. He stepped forward [to lead], read Basmallaħ aloud and performed prayer in the Shāfiʿī manner.

                              Regarding Abū ʿAlī ál-Ḥusayn bin 'l-Khaḍir ál-Nasafī (died 424 A.H.), Ibn Māzah Maḥmūd bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz ál-Bukhārī (died 616 A.H.) said (Ál-Muḥīṭ ál-Burhānī, 4/255, ál-Majlis ál-ʿIlmī Johannesburg, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):
                              An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife... This is what has been reported... from... Justice Abū ʿAlī ál-Nasafī (May Allāh have mercy on him).

                              Abū 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Qudūrī (died 428 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):
                              When we have established that the layman can perform Ijtihād in choosing Muftis, can he now perform Ijtihād in verdicts themselves in which he is to perform Taqlīd, i.e. if he thinks that a particular verdict of a particular jurist is more stronger, does he have to follow that verdict? Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and ál-Qudūrī differed over this: ál-Qudūrī obligated this...

                              Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī (died 430 A.H.), explaining that even laymen are not completely free from doing Ijtihād, said (Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ, pg. 392 and 410, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1421 A.H.):
                              Taqlīd is of four types: 1) Believing in the Prophet, 2) Believing in a scholar who is qualified to pass verdicts, 3) For the laymen to believe in the scholars of their era, 4) Sons believing their forefathers and minors believing the majors of this world. The first three are correct as they require at least some sort of effort (Istidlāl)...
                              As for the those who say that "The truth is only one [in the eyes of Allah in every issue]", he obliged the layman to follow the one Imām who is the most knowledgeable according to [this layman's] own deduction, and does not differ against [his Imām] in anything based his own predilection.

                              Abū ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Ṣaymarī (died 436 A.H.), is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/311-312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):
                              Abū Isḥāq ál-Shīrāzī said: A man came to the Ḥanafī jurist ál-Ṣaymarī with the Shāfiʿī verdict that if a marriage representative is a sinner and her husband divorced her thrice that the divorce would not pass, and may marry her with a new contract [as the previous contracted never existed]. Ál-Ṣaymarī said, "They have told you that, all this time, you were with an illegal pudenda, and that she can become legal for you today [with a new contract]! I am telling you that she was legal for you all this time until you divorced her, and now she is illegal for you!" By this, ál-Ṣaymarī intended to sway the layman to the Ḥanafī School. (Abū Isḥāq says) I came to Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and told him he story. He replied, "... but Allāh has not ordained the layman to follow ál-Ṣaymarī; rather he has ordained him to follow any scholar he wishes, so when the layman follows a trustworthy Shāfiʿī, he would have liberated himself of sin and liability until the Day of Judgement."

                              Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Khalīl ál-Ṭarābalusī (died 844 A.H.) quoted Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-Nāṭifī (died 446 A.H.) who said (Muʿīn 'l-Ḥukkām by, pg. 30, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Maymaniyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1310 A.H.):
                              A scholar passes verdict according to the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfaħ; another according to the opinion of Abū Yūsuf; another according to the opinion of Muḥammad or Zufar; [whatever the difference of opinion within the Ḥanafī School, the non-Mujtahid judge] cannot take the opinion of ál-Shāfiʿī or Mālik [when passing judgement].

                              Dāwūd bin Yūsuf ál-Khaṭīb (died post-600 A.H.?) – quoting Shams 'l-A'immaħ ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad bin Naṣr ál-Ḥalwānī (died 448 A.H.) – said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Ghiyāthiyyaħ, pg. 85, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1321 A.H.):
                              An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.

                              Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAli bin 'l-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad ál-Sughdī (died 461 A.H.) said (Ál-Nutaf Fī ál-Fatāwā, 2/861, Mu'assasaŧ 'l-Risālaħ Beirut, 2nd edition, 1404 A.H.):
                              Similarly, if it was a learned person facing an issue [of potential divorce after he uttered something to his wife], so he asked a jurist regarding [what he uttered to his wife], and [the jurist] passed the verdict of [her] legality or illegality [upon him], but [the questioner] did not set himself upon the verdict [to occur on his wife] nor did he pass it on [his wife], but rather asked another jurist, and [this second jurist] passed a verdict that was opposite to the first jurist’s verdict, and [the questioner] passed [this second verdict on his wife] and set himself upon [this second verdict] for himself and his wife, and he abandoned the verdict of the first jurist, then [the second verdict] would become binding upon him. He cannot [now] take the first jurist’s verdict by discarding [the second] verdict which he had set himself upon...
                              If a jurist gave [the questioner] a verdict, but he did not set upon it in regards to his wife nor did he pass it on her before having asked another jurist, then it is permissible for him to take either of the verdicts him, set himself upon it and pass it [on his wife].

                              Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Bazdawī (died 482 A.H.) was asked whether a Ḥanafī switching to the Shāfiʿi School can be deemed as an apostate, and whether his testimony can be accepted or not, so he replied (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 251, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                              It is inappropriate to say to him [that he became an apostate] as he would not have exited the fold of Islām due to this. As for [his] testimony, then if he is a jurist and his Ijtihād led him to this [conclusion that the Shāfiʿi School is superior] and he is religious [about this], his testimony would [still] be accepted. [But] if one switched due to carelessness in belief [i.e. he switched despite believing that that the Ḥanafī School is superior] and out of [mere] audacity to switch from one school to another based on his own [baseless] view and predilection for some personal gain, then his testimony would not be accepted.

                              ʿAbd 'l-Sayyid ál-Khaṭībī (died 489 A.H.) said (taken from ál-Jawāhir ál-Muḍiyyaħ Fī Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanafiyyaħ by Abū 'l-Wafā' ál-Qurashī (died 775), 2/425-426, Dār Hajar Giza, 2nd edition 1413 A.H.)
                              was asked regarding the one who suspended three divorces upon marrying her, then was told that it would not occur according to the opinion of ál-Shāfiʿī, so he took his opinion on the basis that ál-Shāfiʿī is a reliable Mujtahid – can he stay with her or not [after marrying her, since the Ḥanafī position is that three divorces would automatically occur upon marriage]. He replied: “According to our ʿIrāqī Mashāyikh, yes; according to our Khurāsānī Mashāyikh, no.”

                              Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 47, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                              If a female minor was married off by her representative to a male minor in the testimony of transgressors and the father of [the male minor] accepted, then they reached adulthood but there was remote absence between the couple, the [Ḥanafī] judge is allowed to send [the case of the female] to a Shāfiʿi [judge] to annul the marriage based on this reason. The Ḥanafī judge may himself execute this also by taking [the Shāfiʿi] position, even though it is not be his own position...

                              Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 51, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                              If a Ḥanafī facing a situation asks a Shāfiʿi and he told him that divorce would not occur, it would not be correct for [the Ḥanafī to take this verdict]. Only his belief [in the preference of the Ḥanafī School over the Shāfiʿi School] would be considered, so if he does something that goes against his belief, it would be religiously illegal for him.

                              Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥaṣīrī (died 500 A.H.), footnoting on the aforementioned incident of Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin Isḥāq ál-Jūzjānī (died pre-300 A.H.), said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 333, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                              This is how the actions of the earlier Imāms were. As for the one who is not from those who are qualified for Ijtihād, and move from one opinion to another without evidence for some worldly gain or desire, then he is blameworthy, a transgressor and deserves disciplining and reprimand for committing an evil act, and making a mockery out of the religion and his school [which for] him is the truth.



                              SIXTH CENTURY A.H.

                              Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Arsābandī (died 512 A.H.) in Mukhtaṣar Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ (taken from ál-Jawāhir ál-Muḍiyyaħ Fī Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanafiyyaħ by Abū 'l-Wafā' ál-Qurashī (died 775 A.H.), 3/148, Dār Hajar Giza, 2nd edition 1413 A.H.)

                              Ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd Abū Muḥammad ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz (died 536 A.H.) said in his ál-Fatāwā ál-Ṣughrā (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                              If a person asked for a verdict, and one scholar passed the verdict of permissibility, then another passé the verdict of illegality after the questioner had implemented the verdict of the first, then he [can] implement the verdict of the second in relation to another wife [of his], but not in relation to his first wife.

                              Abū 'l-Thanā' Maḥmūd bin Zayd ál-Lāmishī (was alive 539 A.H.) said (pg. 201, unnamed Usūl book, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, A.H.):
                              When he reaches this limit that we have mentioned, it would be legal for him to pass legal verdicts to whoever questions him via his personal opinion and Ijtihād. But if he has not reached this level and was asked in an issue, then he may answer if he knows the statement of the predecessors, otherwise not.

                              Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Samarqandī (died 539 A.H.) said (Mīzān 'l-Uṣūl Fī Natā'ij 'l-ʿUqūl, pg. 1017, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1404 A.H.):
                              As for Taqlīd in legal issues, it is impermissible except for laymen and those students of knowledge who are like laymen until as long as they do not reach the level of Ijtihād. This is due to necessity. However, they must follow whoever is the most knowledgeable and the most fearful in their estimation. [This can be ascertained] via hearing out for fame [in the scholar].

                              Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad ál-Kirmānī (died 543 A.H.) said (taken from Nūr 'l-ʿAyn Fī Iṣlāḥ Jāmiʿ 'l-Fuṣūlayn by Nishānjī Zādah (died 1031 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7184, pg. 15):
                              If a person passing verdicts is a non-Mujtahid Muqallid, he should take the opinion of the jurist who is the best according to him and reference [his] answer to him. If he is in another city, he should make written correspondence with him. He must not arbitrarily estimate [verdicts] out of fear of lying against Allāh.

                              Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad ál-Kirmānī (died 543 A.H.) was asked (taken from Yatīmaŧ 'l-Dahr Fī Fatāwā Ahl 'l-ʿAṣr, ál-Maktabaħ ál-Azhariyyaħ Cairo manuscript no. 26958 by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm bin ʿUmar bin Muḥammad ál-Tarjumānī (died pre-600 A.H?.), ál-Maktabaħ ál-Azhariyyaħ Cairo manuscript no. 26958, pg. 129)
                              regarding one who is afflicted with scabs and ulcers to the extent that wet ablution for each obligatory prayer is difficult for him whether he could take the position of ál-Shāfiʿī. I [i.e. ál-Tarjumānī] was present [there too]. He replied, ‘No, but if the water is harmful to him then he may perform dry ablution and then perform prayer.’

                              Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Ḥamīd ál-Usmandī (died 552 A.H.), said (Badhl 'l-Naẓr Fī ál-Uṣūl, pg. 693-694, Maktabaŧ Dār 'l-Turāth Cairo, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.):
                              If another legalist has a difference of opinion with [the layman's] Mufti, the [layman's] legalist can give the layman a choice whether he wants to take his opinion or the other Mufti's opinion, because both opinions are from Ijtihād.

                              Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.) said (Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā, pg. 318, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                              As for the lay Muslims, it is not in the power of each and every one of them to execute preference between evidences and perform Ijtihād; but it is appropriate for them to prefer an Imām and follow him. Once [the layman] contemplates and thus chooses one Imām over another and sees the correctness in the [legal] method [of his Imām], the verdicts of other Imāms would have been invalidated for him, and he cannot practise upon their schools, just like a Mujtahid cannot practise upon other evidences once he sees a particular piece of evidence as the correct one.

                              Abū Naṣr Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-ʿAttābī (died 586 A.H.) said in his Jawāmiʿ 'l-Fiqh (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                              If a layman is given different verdicts by the Muftīs, he would be obliged by the verdict he chooses and sets himself upon. It has [also] been said that [he would be obliged by] the first verdict [that was given to him]. Once he chooses one, then he came to face the same situation [at another time], he should not abandon [the verdict he had implemented].

                              Ál-Ḥasan bin Manṣūr ál-Ūzjandī (died 592 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Qāḍī Khān (printed alongside ál-Fatāwā ál-Hindiyyaħ), 2/453, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 2nd edition, 1310 A.H.):
                              [In fact], an even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists (May Allāh have mercy on them)... if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife. It has [also] been reported from them if a person facing a situation asks a jurist and he replied that the suspension is redundant, he can retain [his wife], and if he married another after [the first]... and asked another jurist... who replied that the suspension was correct and his divorce occurs with [his suspension], then he would separate himself from the second woman, but can still retain the first. This is [all] because the verdict given by a jurist to an ignorant person is tantamount to the verdict of a judge who has been appointed to the case, or the award of an arbiter.

                              ʿAyn 'l-A'immaħ ʿUmar ál-Karābīsī (died pre-600 A.H.) said (taken from Qunyaŧ 'l-Munyaħ by ál-Zāhidī (died 658 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7382, pg. 93):
                              [If] a [layman] asks two Ḥanafī Muftīs and they pass opposite verdicts, like that of lawfulness and prohibition, or that of correctness and incorrectness, then [he] should take the [negative] verdict in worship, and the [positive] verdict in dealings.



                              SEVENTH CENTURY A.H.

                              Yūsuf bin Abī Saʿīd ál-Sijistānī (died post-638 A.H.?) said (Munyaŧ 'l-Muftī, pg. 63, Houghton Library, Harvard University Cambridge MA):
                              An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.

                              Muẓaffar 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Sāʿātī Aḥmad bin ʿAlī bin Taghlib ál-Baʿlabakkī (died 694 A.H.) said (Badīʿ 'l-Niẓām ál-Jāmiʿ Bayn Kitābay 'l-Bazdawī Wa-'l-Iḥkām, pg. 684-685, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1405 A.H.):
                              If there are multiple Mujtahids, a Muqallid can follow whoever he likes even if [the Mujtahids] differ in status. It is narrated from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that it is necessary [for the Muqallid] to look out for the most preferred [Mujtahid]. Our evidence is that, in the time of the Companions, the lower-ranked [Mujtahids] were – openly and repeatedly – asked for and passed legal verdicts, yet nobody condemned [this practice]...



                              EIGHTH CENTURY A.H.

                              ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad ál-Bukhārī (died 730) quoted Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī (died 430 A.H.) (Kashf 'l-Asrār, 4/34, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.)

                              Akmal 'l-Dīn ál-Bābartī (died 786 A.H.) said (Ál-Rudūd Wa-'l-Nuqūd ʿAlā Mukhtaṣar Ibn 'l-Ḥājib, 2/732, Maktabaŧ 'l-Rushd, Riyadh, 1426 A.H. edition):
                              The preferable opinion is that it is permissible [to take another Mujtahid's opinion]... because laymen have always done Taqlīd of one Mujtahid in one issue and another in another issue, and this was never condemned, so therefore this is a consensus on its permissibility.

                              ʿAlā' 'l-Dīn Abū Bakr bin Masʿūd ál-Kāsānī (died 787 A.H.) said (Badā'iʿ 'l-Ṣanā'iʿ, 7/6, Dār 'l-Kitāb ál-ʿArabī Beirut, 2nd edition, 1394 A.H.):
                              Also, if a person is not a jurist, and he asked a jurist about something and he gave him his opinion of lawfulness or illegality, and he did not implement that opinion, then another jurist gave him a different opinion and he took it and implemented it in his wife [vis-a-vis divorce (etc.)], then this non-jurist cannot abandon the opinion he implemented in favour of the first jurist's opinion, because adhering to what one implements is obligatory.

                              ʿAlī Ibn Abī 'l-ʿIzz (died 792 A.H.), author of Sharḥ Mushkilāt 'l-Hidāyaħ, said (Ál-Ittibāʿ, pg. 80, ál-Maktabaħ ál-Salafiyyaħ, Lahore, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.):
                              The most that can be said is that it is permissible or appropriate or obligatory for the layman to do Taqlīd of one of the Imāms without specification of any Zayd or ʿAmr.



                              NINTH CENTURY A.H.

                              Ibn 'l-Bazzāz Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Shihāb bin Yūsuf ál-Kardarī (died 827 A.H.) said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Bazzāziyyaħ, pg. 304, British Museum London manuscript):
                              An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.

                              Abū Sayf Yaḥyā bin Yūsuf ál-Sīrāmī (died 833 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār by ál-ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50):
                              The main Muftīs of Egypt agreed with me on [the issue that a person who affiliates himself to one school can follow a jurist from another school in any particular issue, due to the jurist being possibly correct in the eyes of Allāh].

                              Muḥammad bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Fanārī (died 834 A.H.) said (Fuṣūl 'l-Badā'iʿ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Sharā'iʿ, 2/498, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1427 A.H.):
                              A layman who has implemented a Mujtahid’s opinion in a particular issue cannot – by agreement – discard it in favour of another [opinion]. As for another issue [in which this layman has not implemented any opinion], the preferred position is the permissibility of following another [Mujtahid] due to its definite, widespread and well-known occurrence without condemnation in the era of the Companions (may God be pleased with them) [and] without being forced to ask one Muftī only. As for when one [wishes to] adhere to a particular school like that of Abū Ḥanīfaħ (may God be pleased with him), it has been said has it would be binding [upon him to adhere to it]. It has [also] been said that it [still] not be binding upon him [i.e.] he cannot discard [the verdict] of [the Imām he wishes to adhere to] in those scenarios that have occurred and he has followed him, [but] he may follow whomever he wishes in any other [scenario] apart from [what he has already practised upon an opinion in].

                              Qarq Amīr ál-Ḥamīdī (died 860 A.H.), author of Jāmiʿ 'l-Fatāwā (manuscript), said (taken from ál-Inṣāf by Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.)):
                              If a [layman practising on] Ḥanafī [law] said, ‘If I marry so and so, she is divorced three times’, then he asked a Shāfiʿī [scholar about his], and he told him that she would not be divorced should he marry her, [stating] that his statement was redundant, there would be no problem [for the layman] in following ál-Shāfiʿī in this issue, because there are many Companions of this opinion.

                              Ibn 'l-Humām (died 861 A.H.), commentator on ál-Marghīnānī’s ál-Hidāyaħ, said (Fatḥ 'l-Qadīr, 7/238-239, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):
                              If this ‘adhering to’ is meant, then [realise that] there is no legal evidence that obligates following one particular Mujtahid by virtue of obligating it upon one’s own self either via explicating it or by intending it; rather such an obligation is only via evidence and the necessity of implementing the ruling of the Mujtahid in what arises for him as is pointed out in the verse of ‘Ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know’, and [the obligation of] ‘asking’ only arises when the particular situation [requiring the ruling] arises. In this case, if the Mujtahid’s verdict is established to him, he must implement it. Usually, such self-obligations [of adhering to a school or a Mujtahid] are done due to prevent people from following up specifically on dispensations; otherwise the layman would take the easiest opinion in every issue. However, I don’t know what logic or legal text actually prohibits this, and I don’t know of any condemnation from the law against a person who follows up on dispensations via the verdicts of qualified Mujtahids who can be followed. Also, the Prophet loved to make it affairs easy for his believing community.

                              Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj (died 879 A.H.) - explaining "The layman not possessing a school" - said (Ál-Taqrīr Wa-'l-Taḥbīr, 3/350, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1316 A.H.):
                              ... because a school is only for that person who has a degree of analysis, ability to evidence and have an insight of the schools as he is capable, or one who read a text on the legal issues of that school and becomes acquainted with the verdicts of his Imām and his statements... As the layman is ignorant of the modus operandi of the Imām of the school he is ascribing himself to, and as long as he is ignorant of his methodology, how can this layman ascribe himself to the Imām's school? To the contrary, his ascription to a school would be a mere claim, and it would be a statement that is void of any real meaning... There is consensus that a Muslim can do Taqlīd of whichever scholar he wishes without restriction. Whoever says anything to the contrary, the burden of proof is on them... It is not correct for a layman to ascribe himself to a school. Such a person would not be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī, even if he claims to be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī... If a layman took it upon himself to follow one school, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ, Malik, ál-Shāfi'ī or Ahmed, it would not be obligatory upon him to adhere to that school, because Allāh made no such obligations upon him, nor did Allāh or His Prophet ever ordered anyone to adopt a school.

                              Ibn Qutlūbughā (879 A.H.) said (Majmūʿ Rasā'il Qāsim Ibn Qutlūbughā, Ḥukm 'l-Khulʿ Wa-Ḥukm 'l-Ḥanbalī Fīh, Princeton University Library New Jersey, manuscript number GARRETT 3393 Y, pg. 114):
                              If something occurs for a Muqallid, he should practice according to the requirement of his Imām’s verdict if that situation is specific to him only. If there are two opinions [narrated from the Imām], he should practice according to the requirement of the authentic position of his Imām. If there are contradictory authentications, he should practice upon the verdict of the more knowledgeable and more God-fearing [authenticator]. If all are the same, he would have a choice in choosing which verdict he likes according to the Shāfiʿīs, and according to us he would have to present the case to a third Muftī even if he is in a different city.



                              TENTH CENTURY A.H.

                              Yūsuf bin Ḥusayn ál-Kirmāstī (died 906 A.H.) said (Ál-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 318, Dār 'l-Hudā Cairo, 1st edition, 1404 A.H.)
                              [What is preferred is] the permissibility for a Muqallid to follow a lesser Mujtahid when there is a multitude of Mujtahids of differing levels [in their skill and knowledge]. It is however reported from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that [asking] the best [Mujtahid] is binding on that layman. And when a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in an issue, he cannot discard it in favour of a [different opinion in the same issue] by agreement [of the scholars]. As for the opinion of [another Mujtahid] in another issue [that is separate from the issue in which he has already implemented one the opinion of one Mujtahid], the preferred opinion is that it is permissible to follow that other scholar.

                              Ibn Nujaym (died 970 A.H.), the commentator on Kanz 'l-Daqā'iq, said (Ál-Baḥr ál-Rā'iq, 6/292, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-ʿIlmiyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1311 A.H.)
                              Chapter: "It is permissible to follow any Mujtahid one wishes", even when the schools of law are compiled (as is the case today), and he can also change from his [previously-adopted] legal position, but not out of constantly following up on dispensations...

                              Amīr Bādshāh (died 972 A.H.?) reproduced the Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj's words in the other commentary of ál-Taḥrīr (4/253, Taysīr 'l-Taḥrīr, Maktabaŧ 'l-Maʿārif, Riyadh, 1403 A.H.).



                              ELEVENTH CENTURY A.H.

                              Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Tumurtāshī (died 1004 A.H.), author of Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, said (Muʿīn 'l-Muftī ʿAlā Jawāb 'l-Mustaftī, Imām Muḥammad bin Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 2052):
                              It is permissible [for a Muqallid] to follow a lesser Mujtahid [even] in the presence of a better Mujtahid. Aḥmad and many jurists, however, do not allow this. The first opinion is based on the fact that lesser Companions used to be asked for legal rulings [by lay Muslims in the presence of greater Companions, and this was done] without any condemnation levelled at the questioner... and on that a layman cannot execute preference [between multiple Mujtahids].

                              Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Malik ál-Baghdādī (died 1016 A.H.) said (taken from Khulāṣaŧ 'l-Taḥqīq Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.), pg. 5, Maktabaŧ 'l-Ḥaqīqaħ Istanbul, 1420 A.H.):
                              Realise that the position of the majority, which was chosen by Ibn 'l-Humām, is that the adherence [to a school of law] in itself is not the primary obligation; rather it is permissible for anyone to ask in any matter whichever scholar he chooses and implement his verdict thereafter, as was the case in the better eras [i.e. that] of the Companions and those who came after them, may Allah be pleased with them all.

                              Mullā ‘Alī ál-Qārī (died 1040 A.H.) said (taken from Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām by Muḥammad Ḥayāħ ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), pg. 33-34, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):
                              It is not obligatory upon anyone from the believing community to be a Ḥanafī, or a Shāfiʿī, or a Mālikī; rather, what is obligatory upon each person, if he is not a scholar, to follow one of these great scholars, as Allāh said, “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know”...

                              Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAẓīm ál-Makkī (died 1061 A.H.) said (Ál-Qawl ál-Sadīd Fī Baʿḍ Masā'il 'l-Ijtihād Wa-'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 301789, pg. 4)
                              Know that Abū Hanīfaħ, Mālik, ál-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad bin Ḥanbal are all the People of Knowledge who must be asked and followed by whom who is not a Mujtahid. If any Muqallid implements in his purity or prayer or anything else the opinion of any one of these, either out of Taqlīd, or without even knowing he had implemented it when he was doing what he did... then he would have discharged his obligation. No Muqallid or even Mujtahid can condemn him for doing so, as has been well documented in more than one book as is the case according to us [Ḥanafīs]...

                              Ḥasan bin ʿAmmār ál-Shurunbulālī (died 1069 A.H.), author of Nūr 'l-•ḍāḥ, said (Ál-ʿIqd ál-Farīd Li-Bayān 'l-Rājiḥ Min 'l-Khilāf Fī Jawāz 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 324506, pg. 11):
                              ... because [a layman's] adherence [to one Mujtahid] is not something that is legally obligated...

                              Muḥammad bin ʿAlī ál-Ḥaṣkafī (died 1088) said (Ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār Sharḥ Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, pg. 16, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.):
                              To discard what one has already implemented via following [a scholar] is - by agreement - illegal, and this is the preferred position of the [Ḥanafī] School.

                              Aḥmad bin Muḥammad ál-Ḥamawī (died 1098), the commentator on Ibn Nujaym’s ál-Ashbāh Wa-'l-Naẓā'ir, said (Ál-Durr ál-Farīd Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 327244, pg. 9):
                              It is gained from what we have said that a person does not have to adhere to one particular school...

                              Ibrāhīm bin Ḥusayn Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), footnoting of the statement of ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd, said (Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                              Understand that this person is not adhering to the position of the first scholar, but rather only followed him in one issue.



                              TWELFTH CENTURY A.H.

                              The author of the base text Musallam 'l-Thubūt (died 1119 A.H.) was Muḥibb 'llah bin ʿAbd 'l-Shakūr ál-Bihārī. The commentator on the book, Muḥammad bin Niẓām 'l-Dīn ál-Sahālawī (died 1225 A.H.) in Fawātiḥ 'l-Raḥamūt, said (printed beneath ál-Ghazālī’s ál-Mustaṣfā, 2/406, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1324 A.H.):
                              It is not necessary to stay on the school, and it is correct to switch to another, and this is the truth that should be believed in, but changing should not be done out of desires, as following desires is prohibited in both adopting a school and in other issues of law. (He refers to some later extremist Ḥanafīs in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as simulators (Mutakallifīn) who adopted hard handedness (Tashaddud).)

                              ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.) said (Nihāyaŧ 'l-Murād Fī Sharḥ Hadiyyaŧ Ibn 'l-ʿImād, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6918, pg. 122):
                              As for placing necessity as a prerequisite for a Ḥanafī to follow another Imām, you have already learned previously that this [prerequisite is placed] for preserve [oneself] from following dispensations across the legal schools. Otherwise, necessity in itself is not necessary for following [any one of] the Four Imāms [outside of his Madhhab of practise] once the prerequisites of their respective schools’ legal rulings are fulfilled [when implementing those rulings]. This is because a legally-bound person has a choice of following any one of them in any situation that may arise – as stated before – without the need for [this legally-bound person] to prefer one [Imām’s] deduction over another [Imām’s] deduction.

                              Muḥammad Ḥayāt ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), footnoting on Ibn Nujaym’s statement, said (Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām, pg. 56, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):
                              What he has mentioned is what the Qurān, the prophetic tradition and the statements of the best scholars of old and new have indicated towards. The opinion of anyone opposing this would not be taken into consideration...

                              Abū 'l-Najāḥ Aḥmad bin ʿAlī ál-Manīnī (died 1172 A.H.) quoting from Ibn 'l-Humām's ál-Taḥrīr, said (Ál-ʿAraf ál-Nāsim ʿAlā Risālaŧ 'l-ʿAllāmaħ Ibn Qāsim, Islamic University Madinah manuscript number 29/251, pg. 86):
                              If one is a layman, he would follow the verdict of the Muftī in [that issue] who is the most pious and knowledgeable [according to this layman, and this can be ascertained] via publicity.

                              Abū Saʿīd Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā ál-Khādimī (died 1176 A.H.) said (Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 304849, pg. 48):
                              When a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in any given scenario, he may not defect to [another Mujtahid's verdict, and this is] agreed upon. As for [taking another Mujtahid's opinion] in another legal scenario, the preferred position is that of permissibility.

                              Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Inṣāf):
                              ... if he is in the Ḥaramayn [or any place where there are scholars of multiple schools, then he may ask any scholar]...

                              Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥalabī (died 1190 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-Ḥalabī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 3495, pg. 6):
                              The example [of the impermissibility of discarding what one has already implemented as a Muqallid] is a Ḥanafī following Mālik in marriage via announcement [but] without witnesses, who then wishes to discard following [Mālik after the marriage contract by not giving the marriage gift (Mahr) to his wife based on the Ḥanafī position]. He cannot do so [as this would lead to the severe type of Talfīq in which both schools agree the marriage is invalid].

                              ʿUmar bin Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Āmidī (died 1200 A.H.?) said (Sharḥ 'l-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, King ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz Library Madinah manuscript number 1096):
                              Amongst these issues is the topic of the permissibility [or impermissibility] of exiting one particular school to another after having taken it upon oneself to adhere to [the first]. [The first position] is that it is not permissible, as he has taken it upon himself to adhere [to it], even though the act of adherence is not obligatory itself was not obligatory [upon him] in the first place. [The other opinion] is that it is permissible, and to adhere to what one takes upon oneself is not binding. [The third opinion] is that it is impermissible in some issues and permissible in others – a middle path between the [first] two opinions: so it would be permissible in those issues in which he has not practised upon the opinion [of the school he has taken upon himself to adhere to, and this is based on] what has just been mentioned in regards to the practise of the non-adhering [Muqallid].



                              THIRTEENTH CENTURY A.H.

                              Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ismāʿīl ál-ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50):
                              What is impermissible is to discard [the ruling one has already implemented] in a past scenario [that occurred to him], not a scenario of the same genre that would occur in the future.

                              Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā (was alive 1246 A.H.) agreed with ál-Khādimī (Manāfiʿ 'l-Daqā'iq Sharḥ Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, pg. 304, Dār 'l-ibāʿāħ ál-ʿĀmiraħ Istanbul edition, 1306 A.H.)

                              Ibn ʿĀbidīn (died 1252 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ Ibn ʿĀbidīn ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, 4/598, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1415 A.H.):
                              When a questioner implements the verdict of a Muftī in one situation, then another [Muftī] gave him a verdict different to that of the first, he cannot break his action in that situation [based on the second verdict]. However, he may implement [the verdict of the second Muftī] in another situation. For example, a person performs Ẓuhr after touching an alien woman by following Abū Ḥanīfaħ [that ablution does not break], then he [wished to] follow ál-Shāfiʿī [that ablution breaks, and this was after having performed the day’s Ẓuhr], he cannot nullify that Ẓuhr, but he can follow the verdict of ál-Shāfiʿī for another [day’s] Ẓuhr. This is what is meant by the statement of those who say ‘A Muqallid cannot discard his legal position.’



                              FOURTEENTH CENTURY A.H.

                              Khwājah Zādah Muḥammad Rāsim ál-Malāṭī (died 1316 A.H.) said (Minjāŧ 'l-Wuṣūl Sharḥ Mirqāŧ 'l-Uṣūl, Istanbul University manuscript number 2172, pg. 294):
                              In the case of multiple Mujtahids, it is permissible to follow the lesser in favour of the greater, even when the greater in passing verdicts is present. It has been said that the greater in passing verdicts would become binding [and should be followed], and it would not [even] be permissible for the lesser to pass verdicts in [the greater's] presence.

                              Muḥammad Zāhid ál-Kawtharī (died 1371 A.H.) said (Iḥqāq 'l-Ḥaqq, part of a series on ál-Kawtharī’s legal and jurisprudential works, pg. 152, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):
                              In the commentary of Tanqīḥ 'l-Fuṣūl, ál-Shihāb Aḥmad bin Idrīs ál-Qarāfī said, “Consensus has been established on that whosoever accepts Islām, he may follows any scholar he wishes without restriction. The Companions (may Allah’s be pleased with them) had a consensus that whoever asked Abū Bakr or ʿUmar, or followed them [for that matter], he had the choice of asking Abū Hurayraħ and Muʿādh bin Jabal (and others [as well]), and could implement the opinion of the [latter] two without condemnation. Whosoever claims that these two consensuses no longer apply, the burden of proof is on him”...
                              The ramification of this double-consensus is that people are have a choice of following any one of the followed Imāms via the modes of preference that may appear to them, without obliging all the Muslims to follow one particular Imām amongst them...



                              FIFTEENTH CENTURY A.H.


                              ʿAbd 'l-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddaħ (died 1417 A.H.) quoted Ibn Amīr 'l-Ḥājj (footnotes of ál-Iḥkām by ál-Qarāfī (died 684 A.H.), pg. 231, Maktab 'l-Maṭbūʿāt ál-Islāmiyyaħ Aleppo, 2nd edition, 1416 A.H.):
                              If [a layman] adopts a particular school of law, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ or ál-Shāfiʿī, then it has been said: "It will be upon him to adhere to it". It has [also] been said: "[It will] not [be upon him to adhere to it]", and this is more correct.




                              Full discussion at http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f...tml#post476455
                              And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                              he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                              because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                              and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                              (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                SOME ḤANAFĪ AUTHORITIES* BY MAJOR CONTEMPORARY GEOGRAPHICAL** ASSOCIATION*** WHO DID NOT OBLIGE THE PRESENT SUNNIFORUM.COM VERSION OF TAQLĪD UPON THE LAYMAN



                                BIHAR, INDIA

                                The author of the base text Musallam 'l-Thubūt (died 1119 A.H.) was Muḥibb 'llah bin ʿAbd 'l-Shakūr ál-Bihārī. The commentator on the book, Muḥammad bin Niẓām 'l-Dīn ál-Sahālawī (died 1225 A.H.) in Fawātiḥ 'l-Raḥamūt, said (printed beneath ál-Ghazālī’s ál-Mustaṣfā, 2/406, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1324 A.H.):
                                It is not necessary to stay on the school, and it is correct to switch to another, and this is the truth that should be believed in, but changing should not be done out of desires, as following desires is prohibited in both adopting a school and in other issues of law. (He refers to some later extremist Ḥanafīs in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as simulators (Mutakallifīn) who adopted hard handedness (Tashaddud).)



                                DELHI, INDIA

                                Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Inṣāf):
                                ... if he is in the Ḥaramayn [or any place where there are scholars of multiple schools, then he may ask any scholar]...



                                SINDH, PAKISTAN

                                Muḥammad Ḥayāt ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), footnoting on Ibn Nujaym’s statement, said (Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām, pg. 56, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):
                                What he has mentioned is what the Qurān, the prophetic tradition and the statements of the best scholars of old and new have indicated towards. The opinion of anyone opposing this would not be taken into consideration...


                                SUGHD, TAJIKISTAN

                                Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAli bin 'l-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad ál-Sughdī (died 461 A.H.) said (Ál-Nutaf Fī ál-Fatāwā, 2/861, Mu'assasaŧ 'l-Risālaħ Beirut, 2nd edition, 1404 A.H.):
                                Similarly, if it was a learned person facing an issue [of potential divorce after he uttered something to his wife], so he asked a jurist regarding [what he uttered to his wife], and [the jurist] passed the verdict of [her] legality or illegality [upon him], but [the questioner] did not set himself upon the verdict [to occur on his wife] nor did he pass it on [his wife], but rather asked another jurist, and [this second jurist] passed a verdict that was opposite to the first jurist’s verdict, and [the questioner] passed [this second verdict on his wife] and set himself upon [this second verdict] for himself and his wife, and he abandoned the verdict of the first jurist, then [the second verdict] would become binding upon him. He cannot [now] take the first jurist’s verdict by discarding [the second] verdict which he had set himself upon...
                                If a jurist gave [the questioner] a verdict, but he did not set upon it in regards to his wife nor did he pass it on her before having asked another jurist, then it is permissible for him to take either of the verdicts him, set himself upon it and pass it [on his wife].


                                Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 47, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                                If a female minor was married off by her representative to a male minor in the testimony of transgressors and the father of [the male minor] accepted, then they reached adulthood but there was remote absence between the couple, the [Ḥanafī] judge is allowed to send [the case of the female] to a Shāfiʿi [judge] to annul the marriage based on this reason. The Ḥanafī judge may himself execute this also by taking [the Shāfiʿi] position, even though it is not be his own position...


                                Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 51, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                                If a Ḥanafī facing a situation asks a Shāfiʿi and he told him that divorce would not occur, it would not be correct for [the Ḥanafī to take this verdict]. Only his belief [in the preference of the Ḥanafī School over the Shāfiʿi School] would be considered, so if he does something that goes against his belief, it would be religiously illegal for him.



                                HERAT, AFGHANISTAN

                                Mullā ‘Alī ál-Qārī (died 1040 A.H.) said (taken from Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām by Muḥammad Ḥayāħ ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), pg. 33-34, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):
                                It is not obligatory upon anyone from the believing community to be a Ḥanafī, or a Shāfiʿī, or a Mālikī; rather, what is obligatory upon each person, if he is not a scholar, to follow one of these great scholars, as Allāh said, “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know”...



                                SISTAN, AFGHANISTAN

                                Yūsuf bin Abī Saʿīd ál-Sijistānī (died post-638 A.H.?) said (Munyaŧ 'l-Muftī, pg. 63, Houghton Library, Harvard University Cambridge MA):
                                An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.



                                JUZJAN, AFGHANISTAN

                                In the era of Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin Isḥāq ál-Jūzjānī (died pre-300 A.H.) (taken from ál-Ḥāwī by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥaṣīrī (died 500 A.H.) as quoted in Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 333, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437),
                                it is reported that a man from the [Ḥanafīs] asked a person from the People of Ḥadīth for his daughter’s hand in marriage. [The father] denied him unless that he abandoned his school for the school of the People of Ḥadīth, [i.e.] he reads behind the Imām, raises his hands before going into prostration, etc. [The Ḥanafī] did so, and the father married him off to her. After having been asked of the incident and lowering his head for a moment in silence, [Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin Isḥāq ál-Jūzjānī] told the public audience, “The marriage is valid, but I fear that the Faith of this person shall be taken when his soul is extracted... because he made a mockery the school he believed to be the truth according to him, left it for a stinking corpse, and adopted a school which he does not believe to be the truth. I really fear for his Faith as he has made a mockery out of the religion... [But] if a person leaves his school in one issue or multiple issues via [legitimate] Ijtihād via evidence that occurred to him from the Qurān and Sunnaħ etc., then he cannot be blamed or criticised; rather he would be praiseworthy and rewarded, and it would be permissible for him.”



                                BUKHARA, UZBEKISTAN

                                In the era of Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī 'l-Layth ál-Bukhārī (died post-300 A.H.) (taken from ál-Ḥāwī by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥaṣīrī (died 500 A.H.) as quoted in Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 333, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437),
                                it is reported that a person from our [Ḥanafī] legalists used to frequently go to Muḥammad bin Naṣr ál-Marwazī [died 294 A.H.] the Ḥadīth scholar and used to write Ḥadīth from him... Muḥammad bin Naṣr respected him and treated him well. Then this person started raising his hands in prayer. This was mentioned to [Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī 'l-Layth] and he did not regard him highly after that. [Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī 'l-Layth] said, “The reason why I do not hold him in high regard is because [he] did not hold his religion and school in high regard: he abandoned the school he believed to be the correct one for years and left it without any evidence that would oblige him to leave it.”

                                Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥaṣīrī (died 500 A.H.), footnoting on the aforementioned incident of Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin Isḥāq ál-Jūzjānī (died pre-300 A.H.), said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 333, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                                This is how the actions of the earlier Imāms were. As for the one who is not from those who are qualified for Ijtihād, and move from one opinion to another without evidence for some worldly gain or desire, then he is blameworthy, a transgressor and deserves disciplining and reprimand for committing an evil act, and making a mockery out of the religion and his school [which for] him is the truth.


                                Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Ḥamīd ál-Usmandī (died 552 A.H.), said (Badhl 'l-Naẓr Fī ál-Uṣūl, pg. 693-694, Maktabaŧ Dār 'l-Turāth Cairo, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.):
                                If another legalist has a difference of opinion with [the layman's] Mufti, the [layman's] legalist can give the layman a choice whether he wants to take his opinion or the other Mufti's opinion, because both opinions are from Ijtihād.


                                Abū Naṣr Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-ʿAttābī (died 586 A.H.) said in his Jawāmiʿ 'l-Fiqh (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                                If a layman is given different verdicts by the Muftīs, he would be obliged by the verdict he chooses and sets himself upon. It has [also] been said that [he would be obliged by] the first verdict [that was given to him]. Once he chooses one, then he came to face the same situation [at another time], he should not abandon [the verdict he had implemented].


                                Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Samarqandī (died 539 A.H.) said (Mīzān 'l-Uṣūl Fī Natā'ij 'l-ʿUqūl, pg. 1017, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1404 A.H.):
                                As for Taqlīd in legal issues, it is impermissible except for laymen and those students of knowledge who are like laymen until as long as they do not reach the level of Ijtihād. This is due to necessity. However, they must follow whoever is the most knowledgeable and the most fearful in their estimation. [This can be ascertained] via hearing out for fame [in the scholar].

                                Ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd Abū Muḥammad ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz (died 536 A.H.) said in his ál-Fatāwā ál-Ṣughrā (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                                If a person asked for a verdict, and one scholar passed the verdict of permissibility, then another passé the verdict of illegality after the questioner had implemented the verdict of the first, then he [can] implement the verdict of the second in relation to another wife [of his], but not in relation to his first wife.

                                ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad ál-Bukhārī (died 730 A.H.) quoted Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī (died 430 A.H.) (Kashf 'l-Asrār, 4/34, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.)

                                Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Malik ál-Baghdādī (died 1016 A.H.) said (taken from Khulāṣaŧ 'l-Taḥqīq Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.), pg. 5, Maktabaŧ 'l-Ḥaqīqaħ Istanbul, 1420 A.H.):
                                Realise that the position of the majority, which was chosen by Ibn 'l-Humām, is that the adherence [to a school of law] in itself is not the primary obligation; rather it is permissible for anyone to ask in any matter whichever scholar he chooses and implement his verdict thereafter, as was the case in the better eras [i.e. that] of the Companions and those who came after them, may Allah be pleased with them all.



                                QARSHI, UZBEKISTAN

                                Regarding Abū ʿAlī ál-Ḥusayn bin 'l-Khaḍir ál-Nasafī (died 424 A.H.), Ibn Māzah Maḥmūd bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz ál-Bukhārī (died 616 A.H.) said (Ál-Muḥīṭ ál-Burhānī, 4/255, ál-Majlis ál-ʿIlmī Johannesburg, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):
                                An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife... This is what has been reported... from... Justice Abū ʿAlī ál-Nasafī (May Allāh have mercy on him).


                                Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Bazdawī (died 482 A.H.) was asked whether a Ḥanafī switching to the Shāfiʿi School can be deemed as an apostate, and whether his testimony can be accepted or not, so he replied (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 251, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                                It is inappropriate to say to him [that he became an apostate] as he would not have exited the fold of Islām due to this. As for [his] testimony, then if he is a jurist and his Ijtihād led him to this [conclusion that the Shāfiʿi School is superior] and he is religious [about this], his testimony would [still] be accepted. [But] if one switched due to carelessness in belief [i.e. he switched despite believing that that the Ḥanafī School is superior] and out of [mere] audacity to switch from one school to another based on his own [baseless] view and predilection for some personal gain, then his testimony would not be accepted.


                                MERV, TURKMENISTAN

                                Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Arsābandī (died 512 A.H.) in Mukhtaṣar Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ (taken from ál-Jawāhir ál-Muḍiyyaħ Fī Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanafiyyaħ by Abū 'l-Wafā' ál-Qurashī (died 775 A.H.), 3/148, Dār Hajar Giza, 2nd edition 1413 A.H.)


                                HULWAN, IRAN

                                Dāwūd bin Yūsuf ál-Khaṭīb (died post-600 A.H.?) – quoting Shams 'l-A'immaħ ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad bin Naṣr ál-Ḥalwānī (died 448 A.H.) – said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Ghiyāthiyyaħ, pg. 85, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1321 A.H.): An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.


                                KERMAN, IRAN

                                Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad ál-Kirmānī (died 543 A.H.) said (taken from Nūr 'l-ʿAyn Fī Iṣlāḥ Jāmiʿ 'l-Fuṣūlayn by Nishānjī Zādah (died 1031 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7184, pg. 15):
                                If a person passing verdicts is a non-Mujtahid Muqallid, he should take the opinion of the jurist who is the best according to him and reference [his] answer to him. If he is in another city, he should make written correspondence with him. He must not arbitrarily estimate [verdicts] out of fear of lying against Allāh.

                                Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad ál-Kirmānī (died 543 A.H.) was asked (taken from Yatīmaŧ 'l-Dahr Fī Fatāwā Ahl 'l-ʿAṣr, ál-Maktabaħ ál-Azhariyyaħ Cairo manuscript no. 26958 by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm bin ʿUmar bin Muḥammad ál-Tarjumānī (died pre-600 A.H?.), ál-Maktabaħ ál-Azhariyyaħ Cairo manuscript no. 26958, pg. 129)
                                regarding one who is afflicted with scabs and ulcers to the extent that wet ablution for each obligatory prayer is difficult for him whether he could take the position of ál-Shāfiʿī. I [i.e. ál-Tarjumānī] was present [there too]. He replied, ‘No, but if the water is harmful to him then he may perform dry ablution and then perform prayer.’


                                Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.) said (Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā, pg. 318, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437):
                                As for the lay Muslims, it is not in the power of each and every one of them to execute preference between evidences and perform Ijtihād; but it is appropriate for them to prefer an Imām and follow him. Once [the layman] contemplates and thus chooses one Imām over another and sees the correctness in the [legal] method [of his Imām], the verdicts of other Imāms would have been invalidated for him, and he cannot practise upon their schools, just like a Mujtahid cannot practise upon other evidences once he sees a particular piece of evidence as the correct one.


                                KASHAN, IRAN


                                ʿAlā' 'l-Dīn Abū Bakr bin Masʿūd ál-Kāsānī (died 787 A.H.) said (Badā'iʿ 'l-Ṣanā'iʿ, 7/6, Dār 'l-Kitāb ál-ʿArabī Beirut, 2nd edition, 1394 A.H.):
                                Also, if a person is not a jurist, and he asked a jurist about something and he gave him his opinion of lawfulness or illegality, and he did not implement that opinion, then another jurist gave him a different opinion and he took it and implemented it in his wife [vis-a-vis divorce (etc.)], then this non-jurist cannot abandon the opinion he implemented in favour of the first jurist's opinion, because adhering to what one implements is obligatory.



                                REY, IRAN

                                Abū Bakr ál-Jaṣṣāṣ ál-Rāzī (died 370 A.H.) said (Ál-Fuṣūl Fī ál-Uṣūl, 4/282-3, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Kuwait, 2nd edition, 1414 A.H.):
                                Because it is established that a layman must ask scholars, then either he has a choice of asking any, or he should do Ijtihād and ask the most knowledgeable and fearing according to [the concerned layman]... some said that he must ask the knowledgeable and fearful according to [the concerned layman]... and this is the correct opinion according to us... then it is impermissible for him... to do Taqlīd without Ijtihād, because [surely] he possesses this type of Ijtihād.


                                Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Khalīl ál-Ṭarābalusī (died 844 A.H.) quoted Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-Nāṭifī (died 446 A.H.) who said (Muʿīn 'l-Ḥukkām by, pg. 30, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Maymaniyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1310 A.H.):
                                A scholar passes verdict according to the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfaħ; another according to the opinion of Abū Yūsuf; another according to the opinion of Muḥammad or Zufar; [whatever the difference of opinion within the Ḥanafī School, the non-Mujtahid judge] cannot take the opinion of ál-Shāfiʿī or Mālik [when passing judgement].


                                BAGHDAD, IRAQ

                                Abū 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Qudūrī (died 428 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):
                                When we have established that the layman can perform Ijtihād in choosing Muftis, can he now perform Ijtihād in verdicts themselves in which he is to perform Taqlīd, i.e. if he thinks that a particular verdict of a particular jurist is more stronger, does he have to follow that verdict? Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and ál-Qudūrī differed over this: ál-Qudūrī obligated this...

                                Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī (died 430 A.H.), explaining that even laymen are not completely free from doing Ijtihād, said (Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ, pg. 392 and 410, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1421 A.H.):
                                Taqlīd is of four types: 1) Believing in the Prophet, 2) Believing in a scholar who is qualified to pass verdicts, 3) For the laymen to believe in the scholars of their era, 4) Sons believing their forefathers and minors believing the majors of this world. The first three are correct as they require at least some sort of effort (Istidlāl)...
                                As for the those who say that "The truth is only one [in the eyes of Allah in every issue]", he obliged the layman to follow the one Imām who is the most knowledgeable according to [this layman's] own deduction, and does not differ against [his Imām] in anything based his own predilection.

                                Abū ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Ṣaymarī (died 436 A.H.), is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/311-312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):
                                Abū Isḥāq ál-Shīrāzī said: A man came to the Ḥanafī jurist ál-Ṣaymarī with the Shāfiʿī verdict that if a marriage representative is a sinner and her husband divorced her thrice that the divorce would not pass, and may marry her with a new contract [as the previous contracted never existed]. Ál-Ṣaymarī said, "They have told you that, all this time, you were with an illegal pudenda, and that she can become legal for you today [with a new contract]! I am telling you that she was legal for you all this time until you divorced her, and now she is illegal for you!" By this, ál-Ṣaymarī intended to sway the layman to the Ḥanafī School. (Abū Isḥāq says) I came to Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and told him he story. He replied, "... but Allāh has not ordained the layman to follow ál-Ṣaymarī; rather he has ordained him to follow any scholar he wishes, so when the layman follows a trustworthy Shāfiʿī, he would have liberated himself of sin and liability until the Day of Judgement."



                                HAMA, SYRIA

                                Aḥmad bin Muḥammad ál-Ḥamawī (died 1098), the commentator on Ibn Nujaym’s ál-Ashbāh Wa-'l-Naẓā'ir, said (Ál-Durr ál-Farīd Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 327244, pg. 9):
                                It is gained from what we have said that a person does not have to adhere to one particular school...



                                ALEPPO, SYRIA


                                Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥalabī (died 1190 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-Ḥalabī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 3495, pg. 6):
                                The example [of the impermissibility of discarding what one has already implemented as a Muqallid] is a Ḥanafī following Mālik in marriage via announcement [but] without witnesses, who then wishes to discard following [Mālik after the marriage contract by not giving the marriage gift (Mahr) to his wife based on the Ḥanafī position]. He cannot do so [as this would lead to the severe type of Talfīq in which both schools agree the marriage is invalid].

                                ʿAbd 'l-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddaħ (died 1417 A.H.) quoted Ibn Amīr 'l-Ḥājj (footnotes of ál-Iḥkām by ál-Qarāfī (died 684 A.H.), pg. 231, Maktab 'l-Maṭbūʿāt ál-Islāmiyyaħ Aleppo, 2nd edition, 1416 A.H.):
                                If [a layman] adopts a particular school of law, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ or ál-Shāfiʿī, then it has been said: "It will be upon him to adhere to it". It has [also] been said: "[It will] not [be upon him to adhere to it]", and this is more correct.



                                DAMASCUS, SYRIA

                                In the commentary of Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥalabī's statement, the following is said:
                                Abū ʿĀṣim Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-ʿĀmirī (died around 400 A.H.) (taken from Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-£ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār by ál-£ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50-51)
                                used to pass verdicts by the door of [ál-Qāsim bin Muḥammad] ál-Qaffāl's [a Shāfiʿī - died around 400 A.H.] mosque. The [Shāfiʿī] muezzin [once] called for prayer, so [ál-ʿĀmirī] left [his place] and entered the mosque. When ál-Qaffāl saw him, he ordered the muezzin to double the prayer announcement (i.e. the Iqāmaħ) [as per the Ḥanafī position] and put forward the judge [i.e. Abū ʿĀṣim ál-Āmirī to lead prayer]. He stepped forward [to lead], read Basmallaħ aloud and performed prayer in the Shāfiʿī manner.

                                ʿAlī Ibn Abī 'l-ʿIzz (died 792 A.H.), author of Sharḥ Mushkilāt 'l-Hidāyaħ, said (Ál-Ittibāʿ, pg. 80, ál-Maktabaħ ál-Salafiyyaħ, Lahore, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.):
                                The most that can be said is that it is permissible or appropriate or obligatory for the layman to do Taqlīd of one of the Imāms without specification of any Zayd or ʿAmr.


                                Muḥammad bin ʿAlī ál-Ḥaṣkafī (died 1088) said (Ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār Sharḥ Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, pg. 16, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.):
                                To discard what one has already implemented via following [a scholar] is - by agreement - illegal, and this is the preferred position of the [Ḥanafī] School.


                                Abū 'l-Najāḥ Aḥmad bin ʿAlī ál-Manīnī (died 1172 A.H.) quoting from Ibn 'l-Humām's ál-Taḥrīr, said (Ál-ʿAraf ál-Nāsim ʿAlā Risālaŧ 'l-ʿAllāmaħ Ibn Qāsim, Islamic University Madinah manuscript number 29/251, pg. 86):
                                If one is a layman, he would follow the verdict of the Muftī in [that issue] who is the most pious and knowledgeable [according to this layman, and this can be ascertained] via publicity.

                                Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā (was alive 1246 A.H.) agreed with ál-Khādimī (Manāfiʿ 'l-Daqā'iq Sharḥ Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, pg. 304, Dār 'l-£ibāʿāħ ál-ʿĀmiraħ Istanbul edition, 1306 A.H.)

                                Ibn ʿĀbidīn (died 1252 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ Ibn ʿĀbidīn ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, 4/598, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1415 A.H.):
                                When a questioner implements the verdict of a Muftī in one situation, then another [Muftī] gave him a verdict different to that of the first, he cannot break his action in that situation [based on the second verdict]. However, he may implement [the verdict of the second Muftī] in another situation. For example, a person performs Ẓuhr after touching an alien woman by following Abū Ḥanīfaħ [that ablution does not break], then he [wished to] follow ál-Shāfiʿī [that ablution breaks, and this was after having performed the day’s Ẓuhr], he cannot nullify that Ẓuhr, but he can follow the verdict of ál-Shāfiʿī for another [day’s] Ẓuhr. This is what is meant by the statement of those who say ‘A Muqallid cannot discard his legal position.’


                                BAALBEK, LEBANON

                                Muẓaffar 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Sāʿātī Aḥmad bin ʿAlī bin Taghlib ál-Baʿlabakkī (died 694 A.H.) said (Badīʿ 'l-Niẓām ál-Jāmiʿ Bayn Kitābay 'l-Bazdawī Wa-'l-Iḥkām, pg. 684-685, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1405 A.H.):
                                If there are multiple Mujtahids, a Muqallid can follow whoever he likes even if [the Mujtahids] differ in status. It is narrated from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that it is necessary [for the Muqallid] to look out for the most preferred [Mujtahid]. Our evidence is that, in the time of the Companions, the lower-ranked [Mujtahids] were – openly and repeatedly – asked for and passed legal verdicts, yet nobody condemned [this practice]...



                                MAKKAH, SAUDI ARABIA

                                Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAẓīm ál-Makkī (died 1061 A.H.) said (Ál-Qawl ál-Sadīd Fī Baʿḍ Masā'il 'l-Ijtihād Wa-'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 301789, pg. 4)
                                Know that Abū Hanīfaħ, Mālik, ál-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad bin Ḥanbal are all the People of Knowledge who must be asked and followed by whom who is not a Mujtahid. If any Muqallid implements in his purity or prayer or anything else the opinion of any one of these, either out of Taqlīd, or without even knowing he had implemented it when he was doing what he did... then he would have discharged his obligation. No Muqallid or even Mujtahid can condemn him for doing so, as has been well documented in more than one book as is the case according to us [Ḥanafīs]...

                                Ibrāhīm bin Ḥusayn Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), footnoting of the statement of ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd, said (Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):
                                Understand that this person is not adhering to the position of the first scholar, but rather only followed him in one issue.



                                GAZA, PALESTINE

                                Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Tumurtāshī (died 1004 A.H.), author of Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, said (Muʿīn 'l-Muftī ʿAlā Jawāb 'l-Mustaftī, Imām Muḥammad bin Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 2052):
                                It is permissible [for a Muqallid] to follow a lesser Mujtahid [even] in the presence of a better Mujtahid. Aḥmad and many jurists, however, do not allow this. The first opinion is based on the fact that lesser Companions used to be asked for legal rulings [by lay Muslims in the presence of greater Companions, and this was done] without any condemnation levelled at the questioner... and on that a layman cannot execute preference [between multiple Mujtahids].


                                NABLUS, PALESTINE


                                ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.) said (Nihāyaŧ 'l-Murād Fī Sharḥ Hadiyyaŧ Ibn 'l-ʿImād, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6918, pg. 122):
                                As for placing necessity as a prerequisite for a Ḥanafī to follow another Imām, you have already learned previously that this [prerequisite is placed] for preserve [oneself] from following dispensations across the legal schools. Otherwise, necessity in itself is not necessary for following [any one of] the Four Imāms [outside of his Madhhab of practise] once the prerequisites of their respective schools’ legal rulings are fulfilled [when implementing those rulings]. This is because a legally-bound person has a choice of following any one of them in any situation that may arise – as stated before – without the need for [this legally-bound person] to prefer one [Imām’s] deduction over another [Imām’s] deduction.


                                ERZURUM, TURKEY

                                Akmal 'l-Dīn ál-Bābartī (died 786 A.H.) said (Ál-Rudūd Wa-'l-Nuqūd ʿAlā Mukhtaṣar Ibn 'l-Ḥājib, 2/732, Maktabaŧ 'l-Rushd, Riyadh, 1426 A.H. edition):
                                The preferable opinion is that it is permissible [to take another Mujtahid's opinion]... because laymen have always done Taqlīd of one Mujtahid in one issue and another in another issue, and this was never condemned, so therefore this is a consensus on its permissibility.



                                MALATYA, TURKEY

                                Khwājah Zādah Muḥammad Rāsim ál-Malāṭī (died 1316 A.H.) said (Minjāŧ 'l-Wuṣūl Sharḥ Mirqāŧ 'l-Uṣūl, Istanbul University manuscript number 2172, pg. 294):
                                In the case of multiple Mujtahids, it is permissible to follow the lesser in favour of the greater, even when the greater in passing verdicts is present. It has been said that the greater in passing verdicts would become binding [and should be followed], and it would not [even] be permissible for the lesser to pass verdicts in [the greater's] presence.



                                KONYA, TURKEY

                                Abū Saʿīd Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā ál-Khādimī (died 1176 A.H.) said (Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 304849, pg. 48):
                                When a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in any given scenario, he may not defect to [another Mujtahid's verdict, and this is] agreed upon. As for [taking another Mujtahid's opinion] in another legal scenario, the preferred position is that of permissibility.



                                ISTANBUL, TURKEY

                                Muḥammad bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Fanārī (died 834 A.H.) said (Fuṣūl 'l-Badā'iʿ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Sharā'iʿ, 2/498, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1427 A.H.):
                                A layman who has implemented a Mujtahid’s opinion in a particular issue cannot – by agreement – discard it in favour of another [opinion]. As for another issue [in which this layman has not implemented any opinion], the preferred position is the permissibility of following another [Mujtahid] due to its definite, widespread and well-known occurrence without condemnation in the era of the Companions (may God be pleased with them) [and] without being forced to ask one Muftī only. As for when one [wishes to] adhere to a particular school like that of Abū Ḥanīfaħ (may God be pleased with him), it has been said has it would be binding [upon him to adhere to it]. It has [also] been said that it [still] not be binding upon him [i.e.] he cannot discard [the verdict] of [the Imām he wishes to adhere to] in those scenarios that have occurred and he has followed him, [but] he may follow whomever he wishes in any other [scenario] apart from [what he has already practised upon an opinion in].


                                Qarq Amīr ál-Ḥamīdī (died 860 A.H.), author of Jāmiʿ 'l-Fatāwā (manuscript), said (taken from ál-Inṣāf by Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.)):
                                If a [layman practising on] Ḥanafī [law] said, ‘If I marry so and so, she is divorced three times’, then he asked a Shāfiʿī [scholar about his], and he told him that she would not be divorced should he marry her, [stating] that his statement was redundant, there would be no problem [for the layman] in following ál-Shāfiʿī in this issue, because there are many Companions of this opinion.


                                Yūsuf bin Ḥusayn ál-Kirmāstī (died 906 A.H.) said (Ál-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 318, Dār 'l-Hudā Cairo, 1st edition, 1404 A.H.)
                                [What is preferred is] the permissibility for a Muqallid to follow a lesser Mujtahid when there is a multitude of Mujtahids of differing levels [in their skill and knowledge]. It is however reported from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that [asking] the best [Mujtahid] is binding on that layman. And when a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in an issue, he cannot discard it in favour of a [different opinion in the same issue] by agreement [of the scholars]. As for the opinion of [another Mujtahid] in another issue [that is separate from the issue in which he has already implemented one the opinion of one Mujtahid], the preferred opinion is that it is permissible to follow that other scholar.

                                Muḥammad Zāhid ál-Kawtharī (died 1371 A.H.) said (Iḥqāq 'l-Ḥaqq, part of a series on ál-Kawtharī’s legal and jurisprudential works, pg. 152, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):
                                In the commentary of Tanqīḥ 'l-Fuṣūl, ál-Shihāb Aḥmad bin Idrīs ál-Qarāfī said, “Consensus has been established on that whosoever accepts Islām, he may follows any scholar he wishes without restriction. The Companions (may Allah’s be pleased with them) had a consensus that whoever asked Abū Bakr or ʿUmar, or followed them [for that matter], he had the choice of asking Abū Hurayraħ and Muʿādh bin Jabal (and others [as well]), and could implement the opinion of the [latter] two without condemnation. Whosoever claims that these two consensuses no longer apply, the burden of proof is on him”...
                                The ramification of this double-consensus is that people are have a choice of following any one of the followed Imāms via the modes of preference that may appear to them, without obliging all the Muslims to follow one particular Imām amongst them...


                                DIYARBAKIR, TURKEY

                                ʿUmar bin Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Āmidī (died 1200 A.H.?) said (Sharḥ 'l-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, King ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz Library Madinah manuscript number 1096):
                                Amongst these issues is the topic of the permissibility [or impermissibility] of exiting one particular school to another after having taken it upon oneself to adhere to [the first]. [The first position] is that it is not permissible, as he has taken it upon himself to adhere [to it], even though the act of adherence is not obligatory itself was not obligatory [upon him] in the first place. [The other opinion] is that it is permissible, and to adhere to what one takes upon oneself is not binding. [The third opinion] is that it is impermissible in some issues and permissible in others – a middle path between the [first] two opinions: so it would be permissible in those issues in which he has not practised upon the opinion [of the school he has taken upon himself to adhere to, and this is based on] what has just been mentioned in regards to the practise of the non-adhering [Muqallid].



                                TAHTA, EGYPT

                                Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ismāʿīl ál-£ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-£ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50):
                                What is impermissible is to discard [the ruling one has already implemented] in a past scenario [that occurred to him], not a scenario of the same genre that would occur in the future.



                                CAIRO, EGYPT

                                Abū Sayf Yaḥyā bin Yūsuf ál-Sīrāmī (died 833 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-£ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār by ál-£ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50):
                                The main Muftīs of Egypt agreed with me on [the issue that a person who affiliates himself to one school can follow a jurist from another school in any particular issue, due to the jurist being possibly correct in the eyes of Allāh].

                                Ibn 'l-Humām (died 861 A.H.), commentator on ál-Marghīnānī’s ál-Hidāyaħ, said (Fatḥ 'l-Qadīr, 7/238-239, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):
                                If this ‘adhering to’ is meant, then [realise that] there is no legal evidence that obligates following one particular Mujtahid by virtue of obligating it upon one’s own self either via explicating it or by intending it; rather such an obligation is only via evidence and the necessity of implementing the ruling of the Mujtahid in what arises for him as is pointed out in the verse of ‘Ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know’, and [the obligation of] ‘asking’ only arises when the particular situation [requiring the ruling] arises. In this case, if the Mujtahid’s verdict is established to him, he must implement it. Usually, such self-obligations [of adhering to a school or a Mujtahid] are done due to prevent people from following up specifically on dispensations; otherwise the layman would take the easiest opinion in every issue. However, I don’t know what logic or legal text actually prohibits this, and I don’t know of any condemnation from the law against a person who follows up on dispensations via the verdicts of qualified Mujtahids who can be followed. Also, the Prophet loved to make it affairs easy for his believing community.

                                Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj (died 879 A.H.) - explaining "The layman not possessing a school" - said (Ál-Taqrīr Wa-'l-Taḥbīr, 3/350, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1316 A.H.):
                                ... because a school is only for that person who has a degree of analysis, ability to evidence and have an insight of the schools as he is capable, or one who read a text on the legal issues of that school and becomes acquainted with the verdicts of his Imām and his statements... As the layman is ignorant of the modus operandi of the Imām of the school he is ascribing himself to, and as long as he is ignorant of his methodology, how can this layman ascribe himself to the Imām's school? To the contrary, his ascription to a school would be a mere claim, and it would be a statement that is void of any real meaning... There is consensus that a Muslim can do Taqlīd of whichever scholar he wishes without restriction. Whoever says anything to the contrary, the burden of proof is on them... It is not correct for a layman to ascribe himself to a school. Such a person would not be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī, even if he claims to be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī... If a layman took it upon himself to follow one school, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ, Malik, ál-Shāfi'ī or Ahmed, it would not be obligatory upon him to adhere to that school, because Allāh made no such obligations upon him, nor did Allāh or His Prophet ever ordered anyone to adopt a school.


                                Ibn Qutlūbughā (879 A.H.) said (Majmūʿ Rasā'il Qāsim Ibn Qutlūbughā, Ḥukm 'l-Khulʿ Wa-Ḥukm 'l-Ḥanbalī Fīh, Princeton University Library New Jersey, manuscript number GARRETT 3393 Y, pg. 114):
                                If something occurs for a Muqallid, he should practice according to the requirement of his Imām’s verdict if that situation is specific to him only. If there are two opinions [narrated from the Imām], he should practice according to the requirement of the authentic position of his Imām. If there are contradictory authentications, he should practice upon the verdict of the more knowledgeable and more God-fearing [authenticator]. If all are the same, he would have a choice in choosing which verdict he likes according to the Shāfiʿīs, and according to us he would have to present the case to a third Muftī even if he is in a different city.


                                Ibn Nujaym (died 970 A.H.), the commentator on Kanz 'l-Daqā'iq, said (Ál-Baḥr ál-Rā'iq, 6/292, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-ʿIlmiyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1311 A.H.)
                                Chapter: "It is permissible to follow any Mujtahid one wishes", even when the schools of law are compiled (as is the case today), and he can also change from his [previously-adopted] legal position, but not out of constantly following up on dispensations...


                                Amīr Bādshāh (died 972 A.H.?) reproduced the Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj's words in the other commentary of ál-Taḥrīr (4/253, Taysīr 'l-Taḥrīr, Maktabaŧ 'l-Maʿārif, Riyadh, 1403 A.H.).

                                Ḥasan bin ʿAmmār ál-Shurunbulālī (died 1069 A.H.), author of Nūr 'l-•ḍāḥ, said (Ál-ʿIqd ál-Farīd Li-Bayān 'l-Rājiḥ Min 'l-Khilāf Fī Jawāz 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 324506, pg. 11):
                                ... because [a layman's] adherence [to one Mujtahid] is not something that is legally obligated...



                                * List incomplete
                                ** Approximate location
                                *** Disclaimer: Geographies require further revision; also some scholars had multiple affiliations (of birth, death, study, migration, prolonged residence, etc.
                                And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                                he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                                because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                                and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                                (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X